Guns and the Tragedy of the Commons

Shortly after the November election I joined the National Rifle Association. I am by no means a "gun enthusiast". I don't even own a gun and have not fired one since leaving the Air Force. But I recognize that the individual right to keep and bear arms protects all other rights. It is a right I want to help protect. I recently received an email from the NRA concerning the new Obama administration "NRA-ILA has received many recent inquiries regarding the new Obama administration's order to all federal agencies and departments to halt all pending regulations until incoming administration staff can review those regulations.  In particular, members are concerned about the order's impact on the new rule governing the concealed carrying of firearms in national parks." Apparently there is concern that the new administration will restrict the possession and use of firearms on federal park land. Parallel issues can be found in (government) public school systems regarding either prayer or the distribution of contraceptives.

This raises the seemingly timeless question: what rights does one have on "the commons"? The purely libertarian solution of course is to place these lands in private hands and let property and market incentives work their magic. But what of the meantime? Until we reach the point in our history where we have a Rothbardian economy what should we advocate as the next-best or least-worst stopgap regarding lands that, for lack of a better word, fall into the category of "the commons"?

This is a very interesting question, and one that, as far as I can tell, has not been well developed.  Not that I think it should be: instead of arguing what to do with the government controlled commons, we ought to spend that time trying to get rid of government.  Off the top of my head, I would say treat the commons as no property at all.

ryanpatgray:

Apparently there is concern that the new administration will restrict the possession and use of firearms on federal park land. Parallel issues can be found in (government) public school systems regarding either prayer or the distribution of contraceptives.

For the former, there is no reason why the Federal government should bar the possesion of firearms on its land when the Constituion, the aw of the Federal government, protects the right of the individual to bear arms. It is simply unconstitutional.

For the latter, this is a reason why education must be privatized for there are strong differances of opinion between individuas on what education  is supposed to be. If there were an education-market then individuals can find the schoos that fits their preferances the best rather than having to debate what subjective preferances are the best in government.

This is the same question as asking should I get student loans, or should I drive on government roads.

You have to play by the same rules as everyone else so long as the rules are in force.

I've been getting into a few disputes about this issue in relation to roads around these forums.

My belief is basically that if you want to drive on roads you have to accept government ownership as given for the time being. Otherwise you are infringing on the property rights of the other "owners" of the commons. There is a subtle difference between accepting these rules and those of taxation since you do voluntarily enter these commons.

The other point to make is that if you look at the roads you'll notice that even if all your money was put to building roads there's no way that you can say your money was spent on every road, even in a small country, unless you've been taxed in the multiple of billions. As such you can't really say that because you've had money stolen from you have the right to drive on every stolen road, or even enter every hospital. I suppose you could claim a certain stretch of road (not that this would be wise) as yours because you've had your money stolen but given that there's no market for roads this seems to just lead to more difficults. On the other hand you could say that you're allowed to break the rules that the government has set and that the government has the right to consequently ask for money, but since it already has that money it has no right to take more. But this seems to grant government legitimate ownership and runs into the same difficulties as before.

I suppose it comes down to two issues. The first being does the government have the right to own anything, to which I'd say yes since a bit (albeit a very small franction) of its money is given to it voluntarily. The second being respecting the property rights of the owners, other taxpayers, of the roads.

GilesStratton:

I suppose it comes down to two issues. The first being does the government have the right to own anything, to which I'd say yes since a bit (albeit a very small franction) of its money is given to it voluntarily.

By this reasoning I would say it only has the right to own the amount of property it could theoretically purchase through money it recieves through non-coercive means. That is very little property. Perhaps a few post offices at most.

GilesStratton:

The second being respecting the property rights of the owners, other taxpayers, of the roads.

Owning land does not imply ownership of the people on that land. Do I have the right to prevent someone from leaving my land? Do I have the right to control your behavior in your private life elsewhere simply because you choose to buy services from me?