[Jedd]

If resource was peace and privacy (those aren't resources), and they were zero-sum, then it'd arguably be tragedy of the commons.

People being dicks and drawing unwanted regulatory attention towards themselves and other people ... is just people being dicks.

I appreciate that 'tragedy of the commons' is a very hip phrasing these days, but its usefulness benefits from not being misused.

[ken]

"Resource" (Merriam-Webster), definition 1c: "a natural feature or phenomenon that enhances the quality of human life".

I would say silence does indeed meet this definition.

[Jedd]

> If resource was peace and privacy (those aren't resources), and they were zero-sum

Not to say I agree with your dubious attempt at bringing 'silence' into the fold of 'resource'.

When you start mining silence by the barrel from deep space, then we can start treating it as a commodity resource.

[andybak]

A resource can be locally limited despite being globally (or universally) unlimited. Energy for example (to a certain degree)

Also I'm not sure "zero sum" is the same thing as "limited". The former imposes stricter requirements.

I'm sticking to my guns on this one.

[Jedd]

I can't consume all the available quiet and therefore prevent you from having any.

[andybak]

You can consume all the quiet in specific area at a specific time. If that's not a limited resource then nothing is.

[Jedd]

> You can consume all the quiet in specific area at a specific time. If that's not a limited resource then nothing is.

a) I don't know how you'd measure 'all the quiet' to determine that I'd consumed all there was.

b) even if I did, it doesn't prevent you from consuming as much (up to all) of 'the quiet' as you wanted, too.

Which brings us back to why it's not a tragedy of the commons, and why the analogy doesn't work either.