You are actually not unanimous in thinking that the commons should be preserved, and this is really interesting to me - so I wrote another post:
For a discussion on the commons in an anarchist society, check out my new discussion on the commons in an anarchist society.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The river is not an unlimited resource. Therefore it can not be a common. It will get clogged up with boats and nobody gets any value out of that. Nothing that is limited can be a common. Who profits most from it should be who uses it, since their profits flow into more business, more spending, or, even, just holding money off the market and making others' money more valuable.
There is no good outcome from any common property, except when the multiple owners are a very very small group, like family sized. And ultimately the kids grow up and want their own private piece of their own anyway.
what do you mean by 'you are not unanimous?' The ambiguity of the english pronoun 'you' is very troublesome in my view. In most languages the plural is also formal. Why would we all be unanimous, some here are also unicorn land of non-scarcity socialists also.