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.
No, in a free society, the owner of the property is the one with the largest number of supporters.
In your bizarro world without Law & Order, I just bring my clan and push you off your land and take it. And then I take as much land from others as I can, and then divide it up and parcel it out among my clan members.
If you want that land back, you'll have to bring a bigger posse.
And, what Capital are the store managers going to contribute?
It's going to be a small store...forever.
You need Capital to expand. You also need Capital to carry you through difficult economic conditions, and the store managers and employees aren't going to be able to provide you with the Capital you need.
You'll have to go to a bank to get the Capital you need, but if the bank doesn't give you any Capital, then you're only other option is investors, because whatever government exists is not going to give you the Capital you need.
The so-called "difference" between personal property and private property exists only your mind and not in reality.
A tribe did not distribute land, it allocated it to clan leaders.
Contrary to your assertion, rents existed.
The clan leader's sons paid rent to their father, by giving a portion of their crops, or their herd, or whatever they made.
The clan leader then paid rents as was tribal custom to tribal shaman, or tribal priests or tribal elders, or perhaps all three.
When the clan leader died, the land was passed by inheritance, because it was owned, to the son who receives the birth-right by custom.
Birth-right customs varied among tribes. For some tribes, it was simply the first-born son, but for other tribes it was more complex. The birth-right went to the first-born son of the preferred half-sister wife, regardless of birth order. If the half-sister wives didn't produce a male heir, then it went to the first-born son of the preferred wife, who might be the 1st wife a man married, or the 5th of five wives, or the 3rd of five wives. If none of the wives produced a male heir, then it went to the first-born son of the highest ranking concubine, and if she didn't produce a male heir, then it went down the concubines in order of rank (and yes, they were ranked).
If you were not a member of a clan, then you couldn't live on that land, you had to go find your own land.
No, private security is still required.
You have no understanding of how the world works.
Police are unable or unwilling to perform a variety of duties and functions
Private security exists for that reason, to perform those duties and functions police refuse to perform or are unable to perform.
Private security protects both employees and patrons, as well as property, whether that property is privately owned or communally owned.
The mere presence of security reduces your legal liability. Contracting private security rather than hiring security in-house does something else: it provides someone to share the burden of legal liability.
An excellent example to illustrate that is a woman in an apartment complex who was raped by a security guard.
She drove home drunk, and the security guard helped her to her apartment, then went to the property management company's office, got the pass-key, then went back to her apartment and raped her.
She sued the property owners, the property management company and the security company. The security company named the guard's former security company as a 3rd Party Defendant.
Why? When police did a DNA test they discovered the guard was responsible for the unsolved rape of a woman in another apartment complex under nearly identical conditions where that guard had been working.
The security company did their due diligence, and in spite of signed written authorization for release of information, the guard's former security employer refused to provide any information other than dates of employment.
At trial, it came out that the guard was involuntarily terminated for suspected criminal activity, including thefts, drug dealing and a rape. The former security company suspected the guard was involved in the rape, but refused to inform police of their suspicions, because of the negative financial impact to their company. So, they passed the buck.
The jury awarded several $Million in punitive damages. The jury did not find the property owners responsible. The jury assigned 10% of damages to the property management company for incredibly bad key and lock control, 10% to the security company for failing to advise the property management company of its poor key and lock control, and 80% of the damages to the former security company for failing to advise the other security company that the guard had been involuntarily terminated, and he had been because of suspected criminal activity.
I mention that, too, because there's a lot of disinformation on the internet about how your former employers can only give your dates of employment. Case law says (and there are dozens and dozens of cases) that employers are required to state if your termination was voluntary or involuntary, and if involuntary, then the reasons why. Employers can still refuse, but in doing so, they place themselves at risk to substantial legal liability.
Whether property is privately owned or communally owned, it has to be protected from loss or damage, and the employees, patrons and others utilizing that property need to be protected from injury and death as well, and since police are unable or unwilling to do that, private security fills that void.
So, your claims are nonsense.
1. BS, there is governing policy by local councils, and then larger syndicates.
2. Yes, each individual store or production center would be small, but more relevantly, there will be less physical stores not of one cooperative.
For one producers will market their goods by themselves rather than through a third party, but there can be a cooperative store independent of any production group in which case the capital will be pooled together by all the cooperatives selling in that one storefront
3. Firstly the property that was passed down was personal property, both the land and the physical goods. Secondly this 'rent' you are talking about was more of a tax. It wasn't an economic deal between the owner and the renter, but of the leadership among others
4. Now you don't understand what I'm saying. If the land cannot be privately owned by law, a private security force that monitors vacant or non-vacant property are the proprietors by nature of their role. Any grievances or assaults are not handled by the co-owned space, but by either housing syndicates they are a part of, or the general council designated for such grievances.
Any faults on the hands of the property owners not accused, rather than being handled by the council, will by handled by a model of consensus democracy.
Has anyone actually been convinced by the OP that Communism is still a useful ideology?
I may suck at counting but doesn't seem so (yet).
To be fair, he's describing a system that is more anarcho-Marxist than Communist. He probably believes he would be an apparatchik in the new scheme of things. That's a false hope, since revolutionary changes usually lead to the death of "true believers", as they are perceived to be troublemakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Delusional.
You own cars that you have. If you claim to own a garage of cars somewhere away from the place that you maintain, what legal system should allow you to control the sales or operations of those vehicles.
The fact is you have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you saying I wouldn't own the cars I keep in the garage of my remote Summer home?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Scientist work irrelevant of wage, it is something they desire. The more free time and leisure they have on their time, the more ability they have to work.
Sure capital won’t be relocated to solve the problem as fast, but who cares?
Edit: there will be money, and funding for universities will still come. Also this wage argument is false.
It's really hard for the scientists to keep working when they are starving to death from not being paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
They’ll be working for themselves. The workers, both blue and white will own the facility will work better as everything is theirs. And it is not like they won’t receive any wages, just that it would be distributed democratically.
The funding, like now, will come from money and capital investment by community councils, individuals, and syndicates (who benefit from their research.
Bwahahahaha. That's hilarious. Workers need to be told what to do, or the enterprise will be gone in a short period of time. Under your scheme, the factories would be much like those of the Soviet Union, which subtracted value form their inputs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Lol, I have more than explained and justified everything I’ve said.
Yet another hilarious claim. You haven't explained anything in a manner understandable by a normal human. I figure my IQ is probably double yours, and many of your posts are just so much jibber jabber, reflective of a lack of real life experience with real humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Nope, right now its priced by corporations based on cost/benefit factors.
Democratically the cooperative would agree to compensation based on the needs and contribution of each individual. Everyone will have a say.
Furthermore everything would be cheaper.
Cheaper, but very low quality. Corporations charge based on what the market will pay. When someone asked me why oil prices were so high a few years ago, I told him it's because his neighbor was willing to pay far more than he was. So, a widget that costs $3 to make, might sell for $50 because people are willing to pay that.
To be fair, he's describing a system that is more anarcho-Marxist than Communist. He probably believes he would be an apparatchik in the new scheme of things. That's a false hope, since revolutionary changes usually lead to the death of "true believers", as they are perceived to be troublemakers.
Are you saying I wouldn't own the cars I keep in the garage of my remote Summer home?
It's really hard for the scientists to keep working when they are starving to death from not being paid
Bwahahahaha. That's hilarious. Workers need to be told what to do, or the enterprise will be gone in a short period of time. Under your scheme, the factories would be much like those of the Soviet Union, which subtracted value form their inputs.
Yet another hilarious claim. You haven't explained anything in a manner understandable by a normal human. I figure my IQ is probably double yours, and many of your posts are just so much jibber jabber, reflective of a lack of real life experience with real humans.
Cheaper, but very low quality. Corporations charge based on what the market will pay. When someone asked me why oil prices were so high a few years ago, I told him it's because his neighbor was willing to pay far more than he was. So, a widget that costs $3 to make, might sell for $50 because people are willing to pay that.
1. I'm fine with the term communist
2. It won't be your summer home anymore
3. Scientist will still make money and be provided public services to either grow food in a garden farm or buy some from a cooperative market. The way funding would work is syndicates would pool together surplus capital to fund scientific organizations (which will also be funded through donations, much like universities) which would be operated by the workers democratically.
The organization will not be organized to make a profit, so organization doesn't have to be modeled by a cost/revenue margin. That being said labor management can still be selected through elections or votes/consensus.
4. I was speaking of worker wages, but yes you are partially right. What you get wrong is in thinking the corporation simply reacts to the consumers. They manipulate demand through speculation, suppressing production, marketing, and monopolization. For cooperatives they will only produce by the financial needs of the workers. The means lower production quantity, which is also a good thing.
Less market choice will be better. But more importantly it won't be a command economy like the USSR, so farms, even if they are in one syndicate, have a great deal of autonomy.
Change socialism for communism and you'll see my point:
“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.”-Mikhail Bakunin
wages are determined by exploitative value, in reality wages should only be determined by consensus. Whether that is higher or lower doesn't matter.
Consensus? Lol!
Wages are, and should be, determined by the interplay between the supply of labor and the demand for labor.
Winterfall again fails at understanding how the world works.
Econ. 101. Seriously. You need it.
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.
