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.
Legal ownership is all that matters because that's all that can be evidenced. Your vision of natural ownership leaves property open to claims of ownership by anyone who thinks they had a hand in producing it (and if you don't think hands will be out, you're delusional.
Reading through all of what you theorize, it boils down to your OPINION only as the state of the division of profits.
So instead of opinion look at the fact of where the unemployment rate is and what opportunities exist for those not satisfied with the bargain they've struck with their employer.
Nonsense. Private property is purely artificial and based off of no 'evidence'.
What one operates, one controls. It is that simple. Just because you made something or were involved in making it doesn't mean its yours. Similarly having state clam on a wide swath of land that you don't operate on is unsustainable without state force since people would naturally move in and labor the land/live on it.
Even when your presence is lacking, you still retain usage based off of what your doing there. If you are harvesting crops and you leave the fields, that is still your operation. Similarly if you live in a house, your residence is still there when you live. But that is all based on your human capacity, a human doesn't have the capacity to live in two houses at the same time so that is a natural limit on ownership. And these realities remain in a community where everyone has there own personal property and such direct control is respected.
It is based on actual societies well before arbitrary legal terms came about giving people rights to other peoples property on the basis of eternal control. That is ridiculous since all material property is temporal in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
Nonsense. Private property is purely artificial and based off of no 'evidence'.
What one operates, one controls. It is that simple. Just because you made something or were involved in making it doesn't mean its yours. Similarly having state clam on a wide swath of land that you don't operate on is unsustainable without state force since people would naturally move in and labor the land/live on it.
Even when your presence is lacking, you still retain usage based off of what your doing there. If you are harvesting crops and you leave the fields, that is still your operation. Similarly if you live in a house, your residence is still there when you live. But that is all based on your human capacity, a human doesn't have the capacity to live in two houses at the same time so that is a natural limit on ownership. And these realities remain in a community where everyone has there own personal property and such direct control is respected.
It is based on actual societies well before arbitrary legal terms came about giving people rights to other peoples property on the basis of eternal control. That is ridiculous since all material property is temporal in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
deed to a house, title to a car, titles on accounts, etc. evidence of ownership.
In your world, what I would make sure I had first and foremost is a gun and a lot of ammunition, because it would be a free for all in laying claim to property
deed to a house, title to a car, titles on accounts, etc. evidence of ownership.
In your world, what I would make sure I had first and foremost is a gun and a lot of ammunition, because it would be a free for all in laying claim to property
Nope, having an official residence in a community can be recognized by the city council, etc.
And people won't be materialistic savages like in capitalism because everyone would have free access to the capital they need, there would be no reason to steal from you.
Separate to that if you worked on a field by yourself and someone destroyed and replaced your crops, you could always find a way for the community to sanction that individual, being as everything is based on mutual agreement and mutual aid.
As for deeds to a house, the state arbitrarily gives those out since you can't have a deed to a house you don't live in. Furthermore you can always lock your door.
Nope, having an official residence in a community can be recognized by the city council, etc.
And people won't be materialistic savages like in capitalism because everyone would have free access to the capital they need, there would be no reason to steal from you.
Separate to that if you worked on a field by yourself and someone destroyed and replaced your crops, you could always find a way for the community to sanction that individual, being as everything is based on mutual agreement and mutual aid.
As for deeds to a house, the state arbitrarily gives those out since you can't have a deed to a house you don't live in. Furthermore you can always lock your door.
Wouldn't recognition by a city council be as arbitrary as a deed then?
Your naive to think that people wouldn't steal and even more naive to think that anyone would care if someone destroyed your crops. Locking a door won't help, it's anarchy if there's no law enforcement. There's no deterrent except for a possible community sanction if they feel like it.
If we're all working fields, who's producing things that people want (people will still have wants). Now we get back to the employment concept to run factories and hierarchies and who determines what input is worth to receive output. It would come full circle to the capitalism we have today.
As for deeds to a house, the state arbitrarily gives those out since you can't have a deed to a house you don't live in.
You wouldn't get a whole house. You'd get a room in someone else's house against their wishes. Have you read any history on how these ideas really worked out?
You wouldn't get a whole house. You'd get a room in someone else's house against their wishes. Have you read any history on how these ideas really worked out?
The communal system isn't always the same. If you have room and want to build your own house, go ahead. But you'd have to operate maintain the whole house or get someone to do it for you (in which case the house officially becomes there).
Wouldn't recognition by a city council be as arbitrary as a deed then?
Your naive to think that people wouldn't steal and even more naive to think that anyone would care if someone destroyed your crops. Locking a door won't help, it's anarchy if there's no law enforcement. There's no deterrent except for a possible community sanction if they feel like it.
If we're all working fields, who's producing things that people want (people will still have wants). Now we get back to the employment concept to run factories and hierarchies and who determines what input is worth to receive output. It would come full circle to the capitalism we have today.
No, the the community recognition wouldn't be because that is where you reside, you are part of the official population count (you don't need house to count as population, but you get my point). Owning a deed to a house that you don't live in is not only artificially supported by the state, but it limits access to housing for everyone else, that's why we have a higher housing vacancy than an actual homeless population.
And the whole argument of enforcement is null and void, when land is operated communally and all land affects the community people operate based on mutual agreement, not legal claims backed by the state. If someone destroyed your crop field it affects everyone and all production being available to the public it is a matter of communal safety. Everyone agrees with each other on how to run things if they operate in it.
There can be rules and regulations set by the community and syndicates can obviously regulate member unions
And I think you underestimate the difference between a natural society and a capitalist one. When people have the ability to work with you on the fields (if there is space) and you must therefore come to an agreement with them, the only people interested in burning crops are psychopaths because there is no direct gain for said person. Furthermore there would be mental institutions to help those psychotic arsonists.
Do you have a point? This thread is essentially the equivalent of going to an America football forum and telling them they should really be fans of soccer because of xyz. It’s a total nonstarter.
The successful capitalist countries don’t want to join the failed ideas you’re spewing here.
No, the the community recognition wouldn't be because that is where you reside, you are part of the official population count (you don't need house to count as population, but you get my point). Owning a deed to a house that you don't live in is not only artificially supported by the state, but it limits access to housing for everyone else, that's why we have a higher housing vacancy than an actual homeless population.
And the whole argument of enforcement is null and void, when land is operated communally and all land affects the community people operate based on mutual agreement, not legal claims backed by the state. If someone destroyed your crop field it affects everyone and all production being available to the public it is a matter of communal safety. Everyone agrees with each other on how to run things if they operate in it.
There can be rules and regulations set by the community and syndicates can obviously regulate member unions
And I think you underestimate the difference between a natural society and a capitalist one. When people have the ability to work with you on the fields (if there is space) and you must therefore come to an agreement with them, the only people interested in burning crops are psychopaths because there is no direct gain for said person. Furthermore there would be mental institutions to help those psychotic arsonists.
Now you're just punking us. People don't obey speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, no parking signs, no loitering signs, no trespassing signs - not to mention the more prolific criminals who steal and cause physical harm to others.
Now all of a sudden we're all going to sing kumbaya arm in arm and get along and there won't be crime and the fields will be full of rainbows and unicorns.
That's enough for me on this one. I'll just leave this here, premonition of sorts for you.
Do you have a point? This thread is essentially the equivalent of going to an America football forum and telling them they should really be fans of soccer because of xyz. It’s a total nonstarter.
The successful capitalist countries don’t want to join the failed ideas you’re spewing here.
Cooperative socialism has existed for many centuries and is growing in this country as the failure of corporate rule mounts.
Read up about capitalist worker cooperatives, credit union banks, cooperative electric systems, all done in spite of state and private authorities to let communities put their own destiny back into their own hands.
As for societies, all anarcho syndicalist societies have been successful. The only problem is most have been destroyed by outside forces, not internal failures.
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.
