Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The economy would collapse under your plan as it needs state funding to maintain itself. Furthermore economic growth in the terms of corporate growth is not a good thing.
Mircea, you are proving yourself lost again, grasping to straws that aren’t there.
Firstly having armed security guards protect property is the makings of a feudal society. I know what security guards are, and I can criticize the laws that allow them to be utilized in such a fashion.
Secondly property managers, if legal protection was not granted to private property owners, would become the owners of the grounds they managed and any relationship with some external entity or person would be made on equal footing.
The exception is store managers and the such but you know that.
Oh, and the fact that you bring up the police, the main point of my argument, that organized force is required to maintain private property as a Factor in economics, shows how lost you are.
The problem is the laws that protect private property rather than empower personal property.
Of course you criticize those laws. It's apparent, with all of your ramblings, that your intent is theft. You are making the case that if a property that you desire is unattended, you should be able and squat there. And any attempts to protect that property by its rightful owner should not be allowed to happen.
Do I have that about right? You're basically a thief? Or want to be one?
1. You can still have documentation that the car is yours. But the question is usage (which exceeds presence) and storage. If you park your car across the street it’s still your car, or in a parking lot, it is still under your control. Just because you leave it for a time doesn’t change that.
A house can’t be stored away and it cannot be personally controlled from far away. You can only control the house you live in. Again, just because you are not currently in that house doesn’t mean you’ve stopped living there, or that it’s vacant.
The question of intention is not really what I’m getting at. You can have a certificate of ownership for a house, car, etc. but these possessions are things you yourself manage and maintain.
A house that you don’t live in is not any of those things, regardless of intentions
2. Again you can still have documentation of your ownership, and if you let someone borrow something from you, it’s an agreement between you an another person.
If they claim it as there own you can challenge in a council, but again borrowing requires a level of trust between you and that person. Same as now.
3. If you have control and authority over the car it’s yours. If you park it across the street from your house it is still in your neighborhood, you can still see it, it is within your area of control. If you leave a car in a random parking lot for a month, it doesn’t mean people will up and take it. For example if you leave a car at an airport parking lot, only to come back a month later, that doesn’t mean your personal property stops being yours. Similarly if you’re gone for a month or even more people won’t/can’t break into your house and take all your stuff. It is still your property.
But say you leave a car in the middle of a highway. Sure you can get it back, but it’s a different case.
Now say you have a garage of cars in a place away from your house or maintenance, those aren’t yours.
I get where you're coming from now.
You've lived your life up until this point in the video game universe, where "rules" are made up as needed, and don't have to make logical sense. Because that is the only explanation for your "it's a rule for this, but not that. And it's a rule sometimes, but not always."
Well, that all sounds good until the workers agree to make 30,000 units of something no one buys, and then they all starve to death and the cooperative goes broke. All because the group is incapable of making a good decision.
Against. It wouldn't have the effect you think it will, and would be gamed in multiple ways to ensure no one paid it.
Corporate leadership has the brains and the data to make decisions, janitors do not. Why do managers make more than janitors? Because the number of competent manager candidates is far lower than the number of candidates with janitorial potential.
1. There would be no competition to control market space, as inventory is naturally limited by what the cooperative can store itself.
Instead cooperatives would be incentivized to work together within a syndicate to coordinate production and share resources for greater output.
Unlike the corporate model of today though, each cooperative would be autonomous and as its worker owned and run, production agreements would be based on the needs of the worker rather than solely on the consumer. That means markets won't be collectivized, and overall production will be lower (as cooperatives will rarely if ever compete).
As such consumers will have less market choice in what good they buy, but the baseline of production will be based on the things people need.
That means for unique goods like the one that "no one buys" would be handled by smaller scale producers with very little risk for profit losses. Furthermore the cooperatives will mostly be tied to their community and council/syndicate, so the production focus will generally be on things people desire. The pricing of mass manufactured goods though would vary on the needs of the workers. So one cooperative in a specific industry will not try to lower prices to take the other cooperative out of business, as they all benefit from the production of the other.
2. Corporate leaders are good at organizing production to lower costs and increase profit margins, but that would not be needed anymore. As there would be no loan system, cooperatives won't need a steady flow of cash to stay open. If there is not enough demand for their product, trade in the international market can more than provide for the surplus.
That being said, individual work places can still elect managers to keep production steady. Just because the janitor has a say does not mean he alone is running everything. Similarly poor people vote in our country, but they don't all decide economic policy.
Ah, but I WILL be hiring a carpenter, as I am in need of some carpentry work to be done on my house. This job is completely unrelated to whatever your kumbaya collective is doing.
So you DO understand that you're writing gibberish. Good to know.
That's personal work onto your own house, and you can find any which means to receive that service. Now if its a question of demand for a certain service that needs to be completed, yes independent carpenters could charge prices relative to that demand.
But a cooperative of carpenters would provide their services only by the needs of sustaining the cooperative, not by the needs of demand.
But this is a bad example because it's talking about personal services. I was speaking more of manufactured goods, and the hiring of a cooperative.
That fails miserably, because at some point, they're going to want to profit, if for no other reason than to advance their current financial situation or acquire more material goods.
Yes, it is, you just refuse to acknowledge that reality.
Who will be paralyzed with bureaucracy and unable to take any action, nor will they be able to enforce any decisions they make.
It's going to take more than harsh words to get me off all of the land I've taken from you and others.
They aren't going to be marketing anything, because they don't have the knowledge and expertise to do that.
That's why smart people use 3rd parties to market goods....because they don't have the knowledge or expertise, and unlike you, they're smart enough to admit that to themselves.
You have zero understanding of business. I derive income from consulting with businesses.
You have no idea what differentiates a successful family-owned business from one that fails miserably.
It's the glass ceiling. You wouldn't know what that is.
I had a family business owner basically tell me he didn't have what it takes.
That's a smart man to recognize his limitations, then take actions to remedy them. He had taken the business as far as he could, he just didn't have the knowledge or expertise to move beyond that, and they were getting crushed by competitors. His grandfather started the business, so it was a very difficult decision to bring outsiders into the family business, even more so, since his adult children and other family members involved in the business were extremely resistant to the idea.
It was either that, or die.
That's the problem with your cooperatives. They all have inherent limitations, they'll never recognize or admit that, and even if they did, there's nothing in your bizarro-fantasy they could do about it, so they'll all collapse on their face.
It was private property. It was Capital used in the means of production, not a consumer good or service.
The tithe to tribal leaders, priests and shamans might well be a tax, but clan members using the land paid rent to the clan leader.
You contradict yourself. If land cannot be privately owned, then security cannot be the proprietor.
It's also possible to contract someone to manage property, and contract someone to provide security for the property.
Whose claim is superior under your nonsensical system?
In addition to contracting a property manager and security, you can contract someone to maintain the property, even if it is vacant, like cutting the grass, removing garbage and debris and what not.
Now you have three people providing services to a vacant piece of land, whose claim is superior?
And what is the response time of the housing syndicate to a rape or assault on the property?
1. Not if the market is not competitive. If all the cooperatives require greater cooperation with other work places to increase production, a syndicate that is formed will not compete for control of the market, but will organize production along with the needs a local council votes for. And as each worker owns and operates the cooperatives, limited to one work space, there is no opportunity to increase profits besides increasing production, but even then that increased production will be done in tandem with other work places of the same industry.
2. No
3. Actually no. Because as personal property is practiced, 'owners of property' by private property laws will not have the presence to be forced of the land, as they don't live there. And any paid workers become the proprietors, which means they can either continue to be paid by you (you'll run out of money since capital gains is no longer a venue for wealth creation) or just accept their roles as the shared owners.
4. Marketing won't be an industry needed to compete in. The markets, similar to farmers markets, or syndicate owned storage centers/shopping centers will be maintain cooperatively or personally, and there would be no competition to dominate the market space that is available. The small businesses you're talking about have to compete in a world of for-profit business powers looking to take over their market share. Take away corporate competition and bank loans, and the financing of a cooperative would simply be based on its partnerships, and will to produce.
More importantly, while they don't require corporate management, they can elect management for production organize work schedules, etc.
5. Very few will pay for service for vacant lands, as they would no longer have claim on that land anymore. I was just stating that if they did, private security, gardeners, etc. would all be the proprietors of that land, even if they agreed to work for said person.
Now who would become the owner? All of them, they would share ownership equally and democratically. And they must come up to some agreement on how this ownership should be practiced
6. The syndicate would be tied to the local councils, and as such, community pressure would require the syndicate to respond efficiently.
You've lived your life up until this point in the video game universe, where "rules" are made up as needed, and don't have to make logical sense. Because that is the only explanation for your "it's a rule for this, but not that. And it's a rule sometimes, but not always."
There is nothing arbitrary about personal property.
It is natural for the workers to own the means by which they work, just as it is natural for the person living in a house to also own that house. These are things Lincoln agreed with.
Historically it has been the same for many centuries. So no, this is not some arbitrary rule set that changes depending on the time of day, it is a system that does not require complicated laws like the private property system we have today.
That's personal work onto your own house, and you can find any which means to receive that service. Now if its a question of demand for a certain service that needs to be completed, yes independent carpenters could charge prices relative to that demand.
But a cooperative of carpenters would provide their services only by the needs of sustaining the cooperative, not by the needs of demand.
But this is a bad example because it's talking about personal services. I was speaking more of manufactured goods, and the hiring of a cooperative.
So, the laws of supply and demand don't apply in your world, except when they do apply, but you're not talking about that. . .
Everyone: stop feeding the troll. Let this thread die.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
