Is there an answer or rebuttal to this problem called "the tragedy of the commons"?

Question

A problem that Garret Hardin says "has no technical solution".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Answer 1

There is no solution except for Capitalism and private ownership.

Once someone owns something either outright or as a shareholder, then it's in their best interest to protect that resource.

Answer 2

The Tragedy of the Commons is a type of social trap, often economic, that involves a conflict over resources between individual interests and the common good. It is a structural relationship between free access to, and unrestricted demand for, a finite resource.

The only solution would be to get rid of the basic human instinct for greed. But that is probably not going to happen. As long as there are 2 humans then one of them is going to want "more."

Our modern struggles over local "commons" (water rights and over-fishing) as well as global "commons" (air quality and global warming) will continue to be a problem until either every human is WILLING to live at poverty level OR until there are no more resources to exploit.

One rebuttal might also come from Garrett Hardin (1968)
"It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Recall the game of tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?" It is well known that I cannot, if I assume (in keeping with the conventions of game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put another way, there is no "technical solution" to the problem. I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win." I can hit my opponent over the head; or I can falsify the records. Every way in which I "win" involves, in some sense, an abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand it. (I can also, of course, openly abandon the game -- refuse to play it. This is what most adults do.)"

This is also what I see most Americans doing when it comes to environmental issues and global warming. They simply refuse to "play the game" by refusing to see their own contributions to pollution. It is much easier to deny the theory of global warming or to place the blame on some other source than it is to admit that my own SUV might be causing the problem.

Answer 3

The truth of this idea is why Communism doesn't work. The only to protect the commons is to have no commons. If everything is privately owned, the owners protect their holdings. The the problem with that is to prevent too many resources from being owned by too few people. That problem is why Capitalism doesn't work. So these two problems together seem to say we need a combination of Capitalism and Communism. Kind of like what we have. Not a totally free society, but not totally controlled either.