It some fancy term used by hyper-intelligent retards that talks about cows, cheese, enclosure, over grassing, and shit (Like tons of shit, like holy shit cows shit a lot). But the term is an allusion to the relation of the idea that an individual Nation-State will fuck over the world to achieve it's short-term desire like a teen girl who hasn't discovered the wonders of the pill, compared to the idea of Nation-States coming together to achieve long term goals together like some basic assholes that you'ed expect political ass-hats to do.
by Emerson ain't got shit on me December 4, 2017
The term has its origins in the sharing of grazing land in a given community, called "the commons", in Britain. An individual farmer could increase his or her profits by using more of the commons than others. The other farmers would then follow suite, leading to the overexploitation and destruction of that land.
In its modern usage, the phrase is used as a metaphor to the above, referring to the exploitation of a common resource. In game theory it is used as an example of how, in a given situation, every individual can choose to do what is best for their own interests and still produce the worst sum result for the whole. See also: prisoner's dilemna.
The most common and effective way to negotiate this problem is private ownership. Another way is heavy regulation and the imposition of sanctions on violators.
In its modern usage, the phrase is used as a metaphor to the above, referring to the exploitation of a common resource. In game theory it is used as an example of how, in a given situation, every individual can choose to do what is best for their own interests and still produce the worst sum result for the whole. See also: prisoner's dilemna.
The most common and effective way to negotiate this problem is private ownership. Another way is heavy regulation and the imposition of sanctions on violators.
by terribly trite March 5, 2004
When a finite resource is exploited by one and all, with the rationale that if I don't exploit it my brother will. The end result is the exhaustion of that resource. i.e. hoarding.
The massacre of the buffalo in America by early settlers for sheer sport, was a completely unneccessary tragedy of the commons.
by Tony Pease August 29, 2003
The unfortunate predicament caused when a public resource, such as a natural resource like land or game, is consumed by everyone but maintained by no one.
Everyone feels they have the right to consume because they are part of the public, but no one feels it their responsibility to maintain it because they are not individually accountable.
Everyone feels they have the right to consume because they are part of the public, but no one feels it their responsibility to maintain it because they are not individually accountable.
by Anonymous September 1, 2003
by Robbo August 28, 2003
The fact that unregulated resources that are held in common are exploited to the point where they lose their usefulness.
Commonly used to argue that having any resources (parks, etc.) held in common will always lead to their destruction. Especially by libertarians and people who want corporate welfare.
Commonly used to argue that having any resources (parks, etc.) held in common will always lead to their destruction. Especially by libertarians and people who want corporate welfare.
We could make this publically-owned pristine forest into a public park Governor, but that would only lead to the tragedy of the commons. Let's sell it to the logging intrests instead! Since they'll have ownership over the land, they'll have good reason to take care of it.
by Colonoscopy October 30, 2003
I.E. everyone lets their dogs poo all over Central Park becuase they can all use it and none of em own it or have to take care of it.
by Home-mang August 27, 2003