Well that's a problem, because implementation is where I get off the bus. It's
If you understand what Objectivists actually believe, that's a legitimate statement. However, I believe this thread has demonstrated that most people here have no clue about that. So while I've no doubt what you're saying is true, I don't see implementation as being worthwhile--we're not to the point where we can have a meaningful discussion of that point. How can we? Every time I turn around someone demands that I support a position that flies in the face of everything I hold as true!
If they've been addressed so sufficiently, why are you (plurally speaking) so reticent to provide the answers?
I'm not. I've answered you.
To me. Who else? You aren't talking to Communists, you're talking to people.
You are missing my point. My point is, Objectivists and non-Objectivists are quite obviously going to be satisified by different answeres.
But okay, let's go with your answer. By what standard are you judging these answers? rimerol demonstrated that I can't expect my oposition to even pretend to stick with logic and rationality as the standards. I'm not suggesting that you are like him; I'm merely pointing out that given my past experience on this forum my question is legitimate.
A tidy answer, but it dodges the question because it only holds if a single party can own the entire commons.
Please explain to me where in my answer I said only one party can own the commons. Objectivism handles corporations and partnerships perfectly fine.
There's a town near where I grew up that has a telephone company. Everyone in town is a member--by choice (you CAN opt out, but there are advantages to being a member that outweigh the advantages of not being one, such as service response times). There is nothing remotely wrong with that situation, despite the fact that, strictly speaking, no single person owns the telephone company. So it's quite obvious that I do not consider sole propriatorship to be the only legitimate business model.
For example, you'd have to own the entire river, in the American Northwest, to prevent salmon overfishing. Or the entire ocean, if you want whales.
Not really. Fish tend to spawn in particular areas. And even if you don't, you can work within property rights to prevent overfishing. You can make deals with various groups, set up nature preserves, that sort of thing. Or it may be that we treat fish like we treat water: certain people have the rights to a certain amount, but no more. There's nothing inherently wrong with such a concept, and it has the practical benefits of addressing how to handle an inherently mobile entity within a property scheme that assumes static property. There's also the option of farming fish--once you're no longer doing industrial harvesting, overfishing becomes a non-issue (and it would have other benefits, such as the halting of reduced catch size).
This is an issue of legal theory, not philosophy. It's telling, however, that you are unable to consider solutions that respect property rights.
Since the whole premise of commons involves situations where no single entity can claim the whole system,
I've studied environmentalism and worked in the field for five years and I've yet to encounter any situation called "the commons" that doesn't amount to land owned by one or more government entities. You are merely assuming that "commons" means "no one can own it". Given my experience dealing with the practical applications of these systems, I reject that premise. This is not, I want to emphasize, based on my views as an Objectivist, but rather based on how environmental remediation is actualy done in the real world. Once we reject the premise that we can assume anything named "the commons" is inherently unownable, solutions present themselves. Also note that I'm not saying there's nothing that can't be wholly owned--I'm merely saying that you cannot ASSUME that that is the case, not without evidence. And unless you're familiar with NEPA, OPLMA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, EPA environmental protocols, and the rest (and that's just at the federal level), I'm going to go ahead and suggest that you do some research about how this is currently handled before you tell me I'm wrong.
I'm merging these two answers because they're essentially the same thing, and rest on the notions that boycotting has ever worked and that people who are very profitably lying, cheating or stealing will be at all affected by public shaming.
This isn't even remotely true. First, you're comitting precisely the same error rimerol did: you're equivocating. First you ask how O'ism answers the question, and now you're talking about our current society. Unless our current society is based on Objectivist principles, I DO NOT CARE what current society does. Again, I'm not going to discuss implementation until I'm convinced we're at least in agreement about what Objectivism actually is.
As for the notion that boycots don't work, you're right. They don't often work (if you think they NEVER work, you're simply wrong; I've seen them work, though admitedly not for multinational billion-dollar corporations). That's fine. No one--particularly not me--said that being an Objectivist means that you'll always win. I'm boycotting Chik-Fil-A, as are a lot of other people, and their profits went UP last quarter. I'm not going to stop boycotting them; I just have to act like an adult and accept that other people disagree with me.
As for frauds and thieives, in an Objectivist society they would be prosecuted. So no, I don't expect public shaming to be the solution.
Well, I thought you thought you were offering a simple answer just above, weren't you?
Not really. I was offering a very brief overview of how it would be handled.
If this threat is the cost of clarifying a few things in O'ism, I'm okay with that--wouldn't be the first time someone wanted to shoot me, and it won't be the last.
And if you still want to hurt me, I do sword fighting--there's absolutely nothing morally wrong with trying to turn my skull into mush, as long as we're both properly armed and armored. Just look for the talk lanky guy in the grey fighting tunic in the SCA. 
