Painting by Numbers

This weekend I was involved in a community project in which the tragedy of the commons was displayed quite obviously. Those tools actually owned by an individual have been taken care of; the tools held "in common" were not. There wasn't any wilfull distruction; people just forgot to shelter the tools from the weather. Meanwhile, any tool that was owned by someone was well cared for. I notice that people will even take better care of another person's property better than they will take care of commonly held property. I think it's because we can relate to another human being, but when we are talking about public or common property we just don't have the psychology.

Anyway in Poet and Peasant, a much different understanding of property "in common" appears. Bailey explains the parable of asking for bread from the neighbor for a visitor. Apparently the villagers shared the ovens and had a shared responsibility for hospitality. So there was never any question that the neighbor would get up and give the bread. In fact, the villager would likely wake a few neighbors that night for various things for the meal to set before the visitor.

Theses items were used in common, for a common purpose, but they were owned by individuals. Someone had the responsibility, the possession, and the use of these things, which sure seems like ownership to me. And yet, they would readily lend them out to the community so that the community as a whole could provide hospitality.

The ovens present an interesting question. Bailey did not make clear, and I don't know if there would be any record of how the community would perceive ownership with regard to those ovens. Did someone actually own them and just let the villagers use them, or did the villagers think of them as "in common?" In any case, the ovens are similar to a capital good and, as I have argued, capital goods are where it makes sense to hold property in common. That's why businesses are so often partnerships or corporations beyond a certain level.