The “commons” refers to resources that belong to everyone—air, water, forests, fisheries, public lands, cultural heritage, and even digital spaces. Historically, societies managed these resources collectively, ensuring sustainable use for future generations. But over centuries, especially under colonial expansion and industrial capitalism, the commons have been systematically enclosed, commodified, and sold for private profit.

The term “enclosure” originated in 16th-century England, when aristocrats fenced off common lands, displacing peasants who had relied on them for sustenance. This forced entire populations into wage labor in the emerging industrial economy, severing their connection to self-sufficiency. Enclosure was not just economic theft—it was cultural devastation, replacing communal care with market dependency.

Today, enclosure is everywhere. Water, once free and abundant, is now bottled and sold at markup. Multinational corporations like Nestlé extract millions of gallons from public aquifers while local communities suffer droughts. In Bolivia, mass protests—known as the Cochabamba Water War—erupted when the government privatized water access. The people won that battle, but commons wars rage on.

The digital realm is also being enclosed. The internet, once a free-flowing space for knowledge-sharing, has been carved into walled-off corporate empires. Tech monopolies extract and commodify user data without consent, turning digital footprints into profit streams. Even cultural commons—books, music, and art—are increasingly locked behind copyrights that benefit corporations over the public.

Privatization of the commons disrupts natural balance, creating artificial scarcity where abundance once existed. Nature operates on principles of reciprocity, not ownership. Taoist philosophy reminds us that harmony arises when systems self-regulate without coercion. When resources flow freely, they are nurtured and sustained. When they are hoarded, they become degraded and depleted.

Economist Elinor Ostrom debunked the myth that common resources are doomed to overuse unless privatized. Her research documented how communities worldwide sustainably manage shared lands, water, and fisheries through collective decision-making. Contrary to the “tragedy of the commons” theory, failure often results not from communal ownership, but from external pressures that impose market-driven extraction over stewardship.

The environmental stakes are enormous. Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution stem from an economic model that treats the Earth as private property to be exploited. Privatization incentivizes short-term profit, often at the expense of ecological health. Commonly owned forests, fisheries, and farmlands tend to be better managed than corporate-controlled land subject to whims of quarterly profits.

Reclaiming the commons is a strategy for environmental justice. Indigenous land rights movements, such as the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline, demonstrate that protecting communal lands is inseparable from ecological preservation. Indigenous communities manage 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity, despite occupying only a fraction of global land. Their knowledge systems—rooted in reciprocity and long-term sustainability—offer governance models far superior to market-based conservation schemes.

The economic benefits of the commons are immense, though often invisible. Ecosystem services—clean air, water filtration, pollination, carbon storage—are valued at over $125 trillion annually, according to a TEEB report. Yet these services remain undervalued precisely because they are not bought and sold in conventional markets.

Knowledge is another critical commons under siege. Intellectual property laws, originally meant to encourage innovation, now serve as tools for monopolization. Pharmaceutical giants patent life-saving drugs, restricting access in poorer countries. Agricultural conglomerates patent genetically modified seeds, suing farmers for “intellectual property theft” when natural seed dispersal occurs. These enclosures of knowledge suppress creativity, restrict access, and prioritize corporate profits over human well-being.

The digital age offers both threats and opportunities. While corporations dominate online spaces, the internet also fosters new commons—open-source software, Creative Commons licensing, and platforms like Wikipedia. These projects show that when knowledge is shared freely, innovation flourishes. The Linux operating system, maintained by a global volunteer community, shows that the commons can outperform corporate models.

Restoring the commons requires legal, political, and cultural transformation. Legal frameworks must recognize the commons as distinct from both state and private property. The Public Trust Doctrine, rooted in Roman law, asserts that certain resources (like waterways and coastlines) must be preserved for public use. Expanding this doctrine to include biodiversity, air, and digital spaces would codify the principle that some things belong to all of us.

Democratic governance is essential. Commons should be managed by local communities, supported by transparent institutions that prevent both corporate capture and state overreach. Participatory budgeting, community land trusts, and cooperatively owned utilities are models already in operation.

Culturally, we must shift from a mindset of ownership to one of stewardship. Public parks, libraries, community gardens—even sidewalks and streets—are commons we often take for granted. Recognizing their value fosters a culture of responsibility and care. Teaching ecological literacy and civic responsibility can counteract the false notion that privatization is the only path to progress.

Therefore, under Folklaw:

The commons shall be recognized, protected, and restored as shared resources managed for collective good. Natural resources, including water, air, forests, and public lands, will be safeguarded from privatization and corporate exploitation. Community governance structures will oversee the management of commons to ensure equitable access and sustainable use.

Digital commons will be protected from monopolization, with strong support for open-access platforms and data sovereignty. Legal frameworks will enshrine commons rights, supported by education programs that promote civic stewardship and ecological literacy.

Indigenous land rights and traditional knowledge systems will be legally recognized as vital to commons governance.