The tragedy of the commons demonstrates that with certain shared resources, when everyone freely pursues their rational self interest not only is utility not maximized, sometimes the result is catastrophic.
Libertarian solutions to the tragedy of the commons usually involve attempted parcelization and privatization of existing commons, and while that's practical in certain cases, in many others -- fishing grounds, air quality, global warming, etc... -- it is not.
Privatization of fishing grounds, in the form of fishing rights distributed by auction, is a widely used means of managing fisheries. It works well when property rights are actually enforced (e.g. a body of water controlled by only one nation).
This makes some sense -- I guess I was thinking mostly of the devastation of fishing stock that has occurred over the last few decades in areas that aren't managed. However, I'd question whether the notion of fishing rights is truly libertarian. It obviously requires a fair amount of government intervention and management, to the extent that the more extreme anarcho-capitalist types would find it unpalatable.
Libertarians do not oppose this stuff, they merely want to consider other approaches. I think pollution can be dealt with purely from a property rights framework, not a greater good framework.
Again, this is a low priority issue, and the thing to look out for is when planners try to use the 'greater good of all' to give handouts to special interests, as has been overwhelmingly the case with eminent domain lawsuits around the country.
http://dieoff.org/page95.htm
The tragedy of the commons demonstrates that with certain shared resources, when everyone freely pursues their rational self interest not only is utility not maximized, sometimes the result is catastrophic.
Libertarian solutions to the tragedy of the commons usually involve attempted parcelization and privatization of existing commons, and while that's practical in certain cases, in many others -- fishing grounds, air quality, global warming, etc... -- it is not.