Nope. I am being very careful with language.

I was responding to: "Even if the depletion of that resource is bad for the group it is good for each individual doing it."

The idea is that individual self-interest will lead to a tragedy of the commons. However, a tragedy of the commons is in no way in the interests of any individual! Individual self-interest will, thus, correct for it.

As the OP said: "A tragedy of the commons generally arises from individual power and freedoms." Well, ownership is a restriction of such individual power and freedoms; the question, then, is how to define ownership. Capitalism is ownership defined through voluntary interaction.

So, regulation is necessary, and I'm saying that the best form of regulation is capitalism (by which I mean the Free Market, by which I mean a market free from involuntary interaction). It is not capitalism to take resources by coercion, and yet all of the disparaging examples that people are listing involve gaining control of resources in just that manner.

Your comment is self-contradictory.

But if dumping the waste in the river is such a problem, then obviously it isn't cheaper. Obviously it's an overhead for which a market will correct.

It is not capitalism to take resources by coercion. The waste-dumper did not gain control of the river through voluntary interaction; he gained control through involuntary interaction. Hence, this is not an example of capitalism (by which I mean the Free Market, by which I mean a market free of coercion).

See here.

I'm saying the tragedy of the commons is not good for each individual.

But, as you point out, it's not good for each individual to cause a tragedy of the commons. Hence regulation, the best form of which is capitalism (by which I mean the Free Market, by which I mean a market free of coercion).

To an individual, his own behavior is always rational. The concept of "rational behavior" is relativistic, making your absolutist claims absurd.

Firstly, that's not capitalism (as explained below), and secondly, that is not even what was being discussed. We were discussing what's good for each individual. As you point out, having resources forcibly taken is not good for one of the individuals, namely me; ergo, your example is pointless.

Clearly people will act out of self-interest to avoid that.

No, it's not. The question is indeed how to define ownership. Capitalism defines owernship as gaining control of a resource through voluntary interaction; all of your examples involve gaining resources through involuntary interaction, and therefore all of your examples are not of capitalism.

Private ownership is a restriction of such individual power and freedoms; the question, then, is how to define private ownership. Capitalism is private ownership defined through voluntary interaction.

No. That is not what was being discussed.

We were discussing what's good for each individual. As you point out, being murdered is clearly not good for one of the individuals, namely me; ergo, your example is pointless.

Also, as an aside: As someone else pointed out, there's no indication that killing an individual is necessarily bad for the group.

Just because you cannot interpret "some sort of absurd enclosure movement for air" as a metaphor rather than a literal solution doesn't mean that somebody else has the same trouble.

If, as you say, it's good for each individual, then it must—by definition—be good for the group.

Are you honestly disparaging both the tragedy of the commons and the invisible hand (i.e., a Free Market, i.e., capitalism, i.e., private owernship of resources) in the same sentence?

O, Slashdot comments... how you are a microcosm for what's wrong with this world...

The free flow of information—that is, the Great Discussion—is already helping people identify and eliminate the stupidity in their own respective cultures/socities.

Cryptographic technologies are allowing countercultures and new ideas to blossom in protected environments, and decentralize the control of resources, thereby allowing society to evolve more effectively by variation and selection.

The Internet will save the world. The Internet is already saving the world.

Exactly. It can't be done; authoritarianism is doomed to engender strife and failure—regardless of whether or not that authority is one man, a group of men, or slightly more than half a population.

"An absolute Monarch is the only thing that really makes any kind of sense" said very many myopic people at one point.

What if the majority says that I must eat peas? That doesn't sound like it makes any kind of sense at all.

Put another way: If you like peas, then you go right ahead and purchase them; I'm not much of a fan myself—I'd rather spend my resources on beer. Thank goodness we have a [comparatively] free market on foodstuffs, rather than a majority rule.

You really didn't think this one through, did you...

What do credit card and shipping information have to do with your IP address?

Perhaps you do other, legitimate things with your IP address that you'd like to keep dissociated from that very information.

If you've got enough resources to waste, you can transform just about anything into a "success"—ignoring the missed opportunies for said resources, of course.