In an opinion piece (Free Markets Avoid "Tragedy of the Commons"), dated September 7, 2014, from the Columbia Daily Tribune out of Columbia, Missouri, John Stossel argues that letting markets and property protect nature is a strategy that avoids the tragedy of the commons. Please read this opinion piece, as well as reviewing the assigned Garrett Hardin reading "The Tragedy of the Commons". After doing this, please explain whether you believe that Stossel is correct and why you believe this. Does Hardin's account of the "tragedy of the commons" offer a reasonable and effective strategy for avoiding damage to the natural environment?

Hardin's explanation of the "tragedy of the commons" shows us several strategies that could be avoided to avoid, as it were, an overexploitation of natural resources and, as a consequence, a great universal tragedy.

Explanation:

The limitation of the human family is proposed as the main strategy, since according to Hardin the population density causes the limit of the use given to natural resources to be passed, since the greater the population, the more exploitation of natural resources, but I consider that It is not really an easy strategy to implement since the laws favor the freedom to decide how many children a partner should have and highlight the family as the basis of society, granting them the legitimate right to use the resources that are in your environment.

The main strategy I consider, is to raise awareness from our homes, to our children, about how important it is to take care and make a balanced use of human resources, teach them ways to recycle, teach them not to waste food and to love and value our nature and the resources that are at our disposal.

if im not mistaken its a. collective emotional arousal

answer; the government can clearly justify the restriction;