@ Kulindahr: You make a Dagny Taggart/Howard Roark argument for self-ownership but isn't the fallacy of the commons the natural result? Something needs to harness the horses.
Self-ownership is self-evident; that Rand sort of grasped it isn't pertinent.
Self-ownership is not, however, a foundation of any sort for the matter of property or ownership of resources, which is where the commons problem comes in. The problem of the commons is a problem of accountability, really, but it rests on the definition of property. Rand garbs onto the current view of private (real estate) property, which actually has no rational underpinnings; it depends on might-makes-right and nothing else (the business of making it one's property by making us of it works only when there is a limitless supply of real estate that anyone at all may go seize).
The only rational way to claim that a person may own real estate is if there is an inherent right to real estate. But no such right can be derived from self-ownership, which leads to the conclusion that there is no such inherent right; thus, any system of real estate must be conceded to be artificial, i.e. constructed for convenience (which tends to mean the convenience of the powers that be).
The question then is how to construct a system of ownership that recognizes the corollary of self-ownership we call "equality"; that is, one that treats everyone the same way. Since the entire notion of a person owning part of the earth is artificial, we can do this in almost any fashion, but if we want to do it in a way that recognizes that "all men are created equal", the simplest path is to say that all people actually own the entire planet not as individuals, but as a whole.
This points to the fact that our whole system of nation-states is in effect an attempt to resolve the issue of the tragedy of the commons by force. Unfortunately, until actual honoring of human rights is universal, we're sort of stuck with that approach -- but within it, we can attempt to adjust the system of property to a more sound philosophical basis by shifting to ownership-of-the-whole -- which can be simply enough done.
What is needed is a foundation which functions as the steward of all real estate and resources for all the citizens and legal residents of a country. All current property titles would become title-leases (TL), and all TL holders would begin paying an annual lease fee to the SF, the steward foundation. The practical expression of the right of ownership as actual ownership would be the quarterly payment to all citizens and legal residents of one share of the revenue from TLs. Note that government would also have to pay lease fees for all the offices, bases, and anything else (I imagine that parks might be held as a special set of property by the SF).
Thus the problem of the commons is ended, because everything is commons -- but cannot be used without paying for it.
This is actually more rational than what Rand does. She relies not on self-ownership, as is claimed, but on Nietzche's will to power, and giving approval to the exercise of power and whatever it may accomplish. To her people are decidedly not created equal, and those who are "more equal" have the right to seize power and dictate to others. Her system of property is that of plunder, and it is the love of plunder that makes the tragedy of the commons a reality. Replace the love of plunder with actual equality, and the problem goes away.
