The debate on publication day was conducted in the mass media by people with no independent ability to assess the book. Over the next few months, intellectuals took some pretty good shots at it in smaller publications like the New Republic and the New York Review of Books. It wasn't until late 1995 that the most damaging criticism of The Bell Curve began to appear, in tiny academic journals. What follows is a brief summary of that last body of work. The Bell Curve, it turns out, is full of mistakes ranging from sloppy reasoning to mis-citations of sources to outright mathematical errors. Unsurprisingly, all the mistakes are in the direction of supporting the authors' thesis.[vagamente a esse respeito, o meu post de 2008, Inteligência e rendimento]
Common Versus Government Property, por Kevin Carson,em The Freeman:
Ostrom also denied that there was anything inherently unstable about commons and argued that they were actually well governed by traditional regulations that specified individual grazing rights. (Garrett Hardin himself later expressed regret that he had not titled his famous essay “The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons” and repudiated much of the use that had been made of it.)Uma nota minha - um grande problema em toda essa conversa da "tragédia dos comuns" é que se mistura frequentemente dois assuntos distintos - o conceito de "tragédia dos comuns" tal como foi formalizado refere-se especificamente a situações de ausência de direitos de propriedade; mas não é raro falar-se em "tragédia dos comuns" acerca dos problemas que possam surgir na propriedade colectiva (propriedade colectiva e não-propriedade são coisas diferentes, talvez até bastante diferentes).
But in fact–a fact ignored by those on both the left and right who equate “private property” to individual property and contrast “property” with the commons–the commons were a form of property rights. And the eviction of peasants from the commons was not simply an efficiency loss; it was a case of the State expropriating property rights.