A commons (or, as the Brits say, “a common”) is a shared

resource. Some common resources are made by the group that shares them; others

are found in nature.* Meanwhile, resources can be shared in a variety of ways.

In a libertarian commons, no one owns the assets at all; since there are no

property rights, everyone shares. In a communitarian commons, a tight group

of people owns a resource jointly. Membership may come as a birthright, as in

peasant villages. Members can’t sell or trade their rights. Some such communities

are very stable and efficient because there are thick bonds of trust and obligation

within the group. In a voluntary/associational commons, membership is a matter

of choice. One can join and quit at will (although joining may be subject to

the group’s approval). Whether it’s an informal network or a registered 501(c)3,

the association jointly owns certain assets. But associations differ from corporations

in that ownership is not divisible, proportional to investment, or purchasable.

If you quit the association, you simply renounce your stake. Finally, in a democratic

commons, the government owns and manages assets and holds them in public trust.

Combining the “made”/”found” distinction with the type of governance yields

the following taxonomy:

	“found”	“made”
libertarian	the oceans, the ozone layer; works of art from the past that are now in the public domain	the Internet; open-source software; science, when it reflects R.K. Merton’s CUDOS norms
communitarian	coastal fishing villages and other communities that subsist on natural resources; very conservative religious communities	rural communities that create and share common pool resources, such as Alpine meadows and water districts; public spaces that belong to tight communities rather than democratic states
voluntary/associational	preservationist organizations that are stewards of some natural or cultural heritage	clubs, religious congregations, political parties
democratic	oil reserves, national forests	public spaces such as squares and museums; laws, legislative bodies

 

All of these forms have advantages and disadvantages. However, I am especially

enthusiastic about voluntary/associational commons that make goods. They are

the heart of Tocquevillian civil society, in my view. Communitarian commons

are too restrictive–and libertarian commons, too fragile–for my taste. In a

lot of my scholarly and practical work, I’m trying to give the libertarian commons

known as the Internet more of an associational feel.

*The “made”/”found” distinction

is really a matter of degree and can certainly be debated in particular cases.

Simon Schama, in Landscape and Memory, argues that almost all “natural” landscapes

have actually been deeply influenced by people.