Rivalrous vs. Nonrivalrous

We have to be careful with our resources. By making a resource public and its access entirely free, we can sometimes contribute to its ruin.

This doesn't mean that free access to rivalrous public goods is always bad. Our public resources exist for our enjoyment as well as for our collective long term benefit. As is so often the case we have to think emperically and strive, always, for the appropriate balance.

And, as Lawrence Lessig points out early in TFOI, the tragedy of the commons does not apply to all resources. We have to differentiate in order to appreciate differences. Resources can be nonrivalrous. By placing limits on the conditions in which these nonrivalrous resources breed and flourish, we create the tragegy of losing the commons.

See what I mean...

A resource is rivalrous when my use of it competes with your use of it. It is scarce in the sense that it can be depleted or spoiled. Rivalrous public goods include tax money, public spaces like parks, beaches, and road ways, the air we breath, the water we drink, and the oceans.

As Biologist Garrett Hardin famously described "the tragedy of the commons", free access to rivalrous public resources sometimes tends to reward those who, pursuing their own natural self-interest, rush out and use or consume the resource, and costs those who aim to conserve.
Think of a popular public beach to which sun worshippers rush out early to take their place in the sand and thereby quickly consume the peaceful tranquil environment that the beach could offer. While the early risers enjoy the spot they grabbed, they prevent others from fully enjoying the beach on that day, and by leaving behind their garbage they little by little spoil the public resource the beach once was. As this story teaches us, by making resource public and access entirely free, we can help contribute to its ruin.

This doesn't mean that free access to rivalrous public goods is always bad. We have to be careful with these resources, yes. But at the same time our public resources exist for our enjoyment as well as our collective long term health. Closing off, privatizing, and/or charging a premium on our would be public rivalrous resources can be tragic as well. Communities have to work out norms and sometimes enforce regulations to avoid overconsumption. As is so often the case we have to think emperically and strive, always, for the appropriate balance.

And, as Lawrence Lessig points out early in TFOI, the tragedy of the commons does not apply to all resources. We have to differentiate in order to appreciate differences, in this case among resources, to discover that all resources should not be characterized in a group. Resources can be nonrivalrous. My use of a nonrivalrous resource does not does not compete with and does not inhibit, your use of it. Nonrivalrous resources can't be exhausted. Fire, knowledge, and digital media fall into this category. For those of us who are lucky enough to be healthy our blood too is nonrivalrous - when we donate, we can easily produce more. Lessig argues that, while in some cases a commons can be ruinous, in others it is quite the opposite. Having more knowledge, more blood, and, insofar as it is used for the right purposes (heat, toolmaking, cooking, and the like), more fire is a good thing. Language is nonrivalrous, creativity is nonrivalrous, and even though they may be capitalized upon, ideas are nonrivalrous. As Lessig explains, placing limits on the conditions in which these nonrivalrous resources breed and flourish, is the tragegy of losing the commons.