Includes "From Freedom to Bondage," by Herbert Spencer.

each human family were dependent only on its ownresources; the children of improvident parents starvedto death; thus, over breeding brought its own"punishment" to the germ line -- therewould be no public interest in controlling the breeding offamilies. But our society is deeply committed to the welfarestate, and hence is confronted withanother aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

Some essays published earlier as pamphlets

Frederick Engels, Ernest Untermann, eds.

Samuel Moore, Edward Aveling, trans.

"There has developed in the contemporary natural sciencesa recognition that there is a subset of problems, such aspopulation, atomic war, and environmental corruption, for whichthere are no technical solutions.

Kahane, trans.Foreword by Friedrich A.

The only way we can preserve and nurture other and moreprecious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, andthat very soon. "Freedom is the recognition ofnecessity" -- and it is the role of education to reveal toall the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so,can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

Batson, trans.Foreword by Murray Rothbard and Introduction by Lionel Robbins not available online.

Let us now bring the effects of these two ratios together.

Coercion is a dirty word to most liberals now, but it need notforever be so. As with the four-letter words, its dirtiness canbe cleansed away by exposure to the light, by saying it over andover without apology or embarrassment. To many, the word coercionimplies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsiblebureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. Theonly kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutuallyagreed upon by the majority of the people affected.

The effects of this check remain now to be considered.

To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say thatwe are required to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it. Whoenjoys taxes? We all grumble about them. But we accept compulsorytaxes because we recognize that voluntary taxes would favor theconscienceless. We institute and (grumblingly) support taxes andother coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons.

Appendix by Edward Atkinson, Introduction by Hodgson Pratt, Prefatory letter by Frédéric Passy.

I think I may fairly make two postulata.

Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is beingpursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some thirty nationsagreed to the following: "The Universal Declaration of HumanRights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unitof society. It follows that any choice and decision with regardto the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the familyitself, and cannot be made by anyone else.''

Science #13, December 1968: Vol. 162 no. 3859 pp. 1243-1248 DOI: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243

Let us examine whether this position be just.

(3) that the administrative system, supported by the criterionof judgment and access to coercion, can and will protect thecommons from further desecration." [p. 55]

"The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin,Science, 162(1968):1243-1248.

We will remove it within 24-48 hours

An alternative to the commons need not be perfectly just to bepreferable. With real estate and other material goods, thealternative we have chosen is the institution of private propertycoupled with legal inheritance. Is this system perfectly just? Asa genetically trained biologist I deny that it is. It seems to methat, if there are to be differences in individual inheritance,legal possession should be perfectly correlated with biologicalinheritance-that those who are biologically more fit to be thecustodians of property and power should legally inherit more. Butgenetic recombination continually makes a mockery of the doctrineof "like father, like son" implicit in our laws oflegal inheritance. An idiot can inherit millions, and a trustfund can keep his estate intact. We must admit that our legalsystem of private property plus inheritance is unjust -- but weput up with it because we are not convinced, at the moment, thatanyone has invented a better system. The alternative of thecommons is too horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferableto total ruin.