[crazygringo]

> I'm not sure if I would call them a commons.

I don't understand why not. That's the literal definition of a commons in the political economy sense -- a public resource everyone can take from freely. (As opposed to a public resource that is managed via licenses, auctions, limits, etc.) On what basis would you not call them a commons, in political economy?

The entire point of the "tragedy of the commons" is the tragedy of overfishing, the tragedy of CO2 levels, because nobody is in charge of managing it.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> That's the literal definition of a commons in the political economy sense -- a public resource everyone can take from freely.

Part of Ostrom's point is that this sort of commons has rarely, if ever, existed. It's a misunderstanding that Hardin's work created or amplified. Resources held in common are in fact always managed and not "free for the taking".

[crazygringo]

Well if modern-day climate change and overfishing in international waters fall into these "rare" examples where the concept is true, then the concept certainly seems important enough to me. I mean, it's mathematically true from a game-theory perspective in the first place. I don't see why you'd want to throw it out.