The Tragedy of the Commons Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Tragedy of the Commons - Essay Example He said, â€Å"picture a pasture open to all† and argued that when a pasture is open to all, each herdsman will keep as many cattle possible on the commons (Hardin, 1968, p. 1243). In contrast, when resources are not owned in common or pasture is not open to everyone, a herdsman places just enough cattle so that benefits or utility exceeds the impact on grazing that the additional cattle would bring (Hardin, 1968, p. 1242). When resources are owned in common or are free for access, the tragedy of the commons manifests itself. This definition is implied but not directly stated in Hardin’s work. According to Hardin (1968, p. 1243), the problems associated with commons or the tragedy of the commons can be averted by private property or something similar. Hardin also said that the other solutions are â€Å"coercive laws† or â€Å"taxing devices† that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants† (Hardin, 1968, p. 1244). As suggested earlier, commons refer to properties owned in common or in which people can have free access or freely use. When no one owns the resource and the resource is free for access like the air or the ocean, it can also be considered as part of the commons or the communally-owned resources. In the United States, one example in which the tragedy of the commons may be happening is in the Georges Bank in Northeastern United States (Hinson, 2010, p. 1).

Comparative Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Comparative Law - Essay Example Political arguments about gun rights fall into two basic categories, first, does the government have the authority to regulate guns, and second, if it does, is it effective public policy to regulate guns? (Spitzer, 1995). Gun debate refers to a continuing political and social debate concerning both the constraint and accessibility of firearms within the United States. It has been among the most controversial and intractable issues in  American politics. The debate has been distinguished by an impasse between an individual right to bear arms based on the  second amendment  and the accountability of government to avert crime, preserve order and protect the welfare of its residents. The right to own a gun and defend oneself is considered by some as a central tenet of the  American identity (Spitzer, 1995). The two early state court cases,  Bliss  and  Buzzard, set the debate in interpreting the Second Amendment, i.e. whether it protected an Individual Right or a Collective Right and occupied the American legal experts thinking for years to come .A debate about how to interpret the Second Amendment evolved through the decades and remained unresolved until the 2008  District of Columbia v. Heller  U.S. Supreme Court decision (Cornell , 2006). ... Gun rights groups maintain that bans on the sale of certain types of weapons have not proved effective in reducing violent crime, and that proposals for stricter background checks at gun shows are designed to eliminate gun shows themselves. Some gun manufacturers have volunteered support for safety locks, but the NRA has criticized safety locks for placing an undue burden on gun manufacturers without a proven benefit to the public (Crothers, 2003). The first category, collectively known as rights-based arguments, consist of Second Amendment arguments, state constitution arguments, right of self-defense arguments, and security against tyranny and invasion arguments. Public policy arguments, the second category of arguments, revolve around the importance of a militia, the reduction of gun violence and firearm deaths, and also can include arguments regarding security against foreign invasions. On June 26, 2008, in  District of Columbia v. Heller,  the United States Supreme Court aff irmed, by a 5-4 vote, the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision struck down the D.C. gun law. It also clarifies the scope of the  Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that it stipulates an individual  right  irrespective of membership in a militia. However, the court made it clear that like other rights, the right to bear arms is not without limitations, leaving open the prospect of governmental regulation. The decision declined to rule on the  incorporation  of the Second Amendment, leaving its applicability to the states unsettled "While the status of the Second Amendment within the twentieth-century incorporation debate is a matter of importance for the many challenges to state gun control laws, it is an issue that we need not