The over-exploitation of commonly-held resources is typically analyzed as an instance of market failure that calls for legislation to internalize the social costs that private activities impose on the environment. In this article, I argue that to the extent that this analysis ignores the regulatory effect of the common law, it is unsound. In The Tragedy of the Commons, Garret Hardin points out that there are two solutions to the tragedy: privatize the resource or restrict access to it. Environmental legislation is a means restricting access to the commons. The evolutionary development of common law is a means of privatizing the commons. These represent alternative methods of environmental regulation. Proper public policy analysis requires a comparative assessment of the efficacy of these methods for resolving any particular environmental problem. In many, if not most cases, such an assessment will show common law regulation to be superior to environmental legislation.
Two Theories of Environmental Regulation
Two Theories of Environmental Regulation
Recent Publications
- Common Law Liberalism: A New Theory of the Libertarian Society (Oxford University Press, 2024)
- “Diversity and Group Performance,” Encyclopedia of Diversity, Springer, 2024
- “Evading and Aiding: The Moral Case Against Paying Taxes,” with Christopher Freiman and Jessica Flanigan, Extreme Philosophy, ed. Stephen Hetherington, Routledge (2024)
- “Online Sports Betting Giants Place Their Bets Against Growing Rivals”
- “Liberal Tolerance for an Illiberal, Intolerant Age”
Recent News
- Advocacy group concerned pay-for-plasma clinics expanding to Ontario will hurt voluntary donations
- Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore, Debating Democracy (University of Zurich’s UBS Center, 2024)
- Jason Brennan “Everything Wrong with Democracy” on the Alex O’Connor Podcast (January 28, 2024)
- On the affirmative action ruling, the Supreme Court got it half right
- Jaworksi on CHQR: Commercial-compensated plasma collections