If there's one thing that history shows, it's that individuals almost never think in the long run- they always exploit the commons until it's destroyed unless restrained by social mores or government restrictions or the like. You can only reasonably expect someone to think in three generations- their parents, themselves, and their grandchildren, and even that's too much to ask from a great many people

I won't disagree with that, the masses of humanity definitely are short-termers best suited for collectivism; although it's sort of unfortunate for those rare individuals who are not like that and have to face this burden of sacrificing their autonomy.

And as for having opt-out from the regulations governing the commons- the only reason to opt out would be to exploit said commons beyond fairness. This is, essentially, how the needs of society and the individual diverge. To put it in utilitarian terms, the needs of society provide for individuals, but do not maximize their gains. It is in the best interest of the individuals to maximize their gains, but that is often harmful to society at large in many situations.

Well, you also might want to opt-out because you don't think the the authority behind the commons is being organized fairly.

I think the crux of this issue is whether or not the individual is more important than the collective. Personally, I believe in freedom regardless of the utilitarian benefits or disadvantages; history has also shown that "society at large" has been responsible for death and misery for millions of people, while individuals have been behind innovation and art that have bettered humanity.