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.
They have a right to private usage of land (as long as you're living in the house no one else can come and take it). Implementing private usage is more out of practicality rather than ideology (some people might just want to live alone with a roof over their heads).
That being said you have no private ownership of the house and any means of production it may hold (farming land) is open to usage by the working community (forming your own work-place represented in a syndicate rather than a private business).
The house itself can't be gifted to specific persons either since it is not under your ownership but rather your usage.
edit: say you build a house, that house is part of the community. You can use it yourself but once you are done (or dead) someone who needs it should be able to use it.
Can I make my friend a hammer and give it to him as a birthday gift then he can keep the hammer forever?
Can I make my friend a hammer and give it to him as a birthday gift then he can keep the hammer forever?
Technically no (at least not in the way you phrased it).
Society is suppose to be different from the transactional one we have today; Attachment being the root of all pain.
Say you make a hammer and no one else needs it because there are hammers everywhere (keep in mind all of this is between the working class, communicating with your fellow worker rather than settling legal disputes through a higher power is the point of the process).
You give the hammer to your friend for his birthday. If people have access to other hammers they have no specific right to take yours alone.
But lets say there were only two hammers left in the world, the one your friend has and the one a neighbor has. A third person may come along and ask to borrow the hammer because he needs to fix a cabin (or whatever). Your friend can either say that after he is done using it he wants to return it to the house he lives in for sentimental value or he could say go ask the other guy because he doesn’t want the hammer to break by accident.
Now if the gift wasn’t a means of production you could keep it to yourself with the understanding that you yourself don’t ‘privately own’ it.
The whole point of the production system, as seen in past iterations, is that production is based off needs rather than the market. So hypothetically there shouldn’t be a shortage of hammers but if there is your friend has a responsibility to share it with the rest of his community and then work out something beyond that point.
Technically no (at least not in the way you phrased it).
Society is suppose to be different from the transactional one we have today; Attachment being the root of all pain.
Say you make a hammer and no one else needs it because there are hammers everywhere (keep in mind all of this is between the working class, communicating with your fellow worker rather than settling legal disputes through a higher power is the point of the process).
You give the hammer to your friend for his birthday. If people have access to other hammers they have no specific right to take yours alone.
But lets say there were only two hammers left in the world, the one your friend has and the one a neighbor has. A third person may come along and ask to borrow the hammer because he needs to fix a cabin (or whatever). Your friend can either say that after he is done using it he wants to return it to the house he lives in for sentimental value or he could say go ask the other guy because he doesn’t want the hammer to break by accident.
Now if the gift wasn’t a means of production you could keep it to yourself with the understanding that you yourself don’t ‘privately own’ it.
The whole point of the production system, as seen in past iterations, is that production is based off needs rather than the market. So hypothetically there shouldn’t be a shortage of hammers but if there is your friend has a responsibility to share it with the rest of his community and then work out something beyond that point.
What about vaginas (or penises)? They're tools for production, if there is a need for increased population (or just an imbalance in preferred gender ratios) is it expected that they will be shared?
What about kidneys, you have two, should you be required to donate if a matching recipient is found (presuming tissue samples are already taken, which would make sense since you don't own anything really, even your internal organs presumably). Or eyes, testicles, ovaries, lungs, and lobes of your liver.
ETA: Actually if you go with communal property in all things then wouldn't it require regulation of how people use those things? So if you borrow a hammer and it's not a demo hammer, using it to smash concrete could prevent it's use later by another person. Thus implicitly impacting anothers right to use? If this includes the person, then it limits peoples "use" of themselves, since smokers restrict the use of lungs, heavy drinkers the use of livers kidneys and pancreas (on current hosts demise), extreme sports participants place undue load on medical provisions, from self inflicted injury. Without the concept of ownership there's a whole bunch of issues to deal with. Now if you don't restrict use, how are you going to manage Maxwell, who borrows hammers for the sole purpose of throwing them into the sea?
What about vaginas (or penises)? They're tools for production, if there is a need for increased population (or just an imbalance in preferred gender ratios) is it expected that they will be shared?
What about kidneys, you have two, should you be required to donate if a matching recipient is found (presuming tissue samples are already taken, which would make sense since you don't own anything really, even your internal organs presumably). Or eyes, testicles, ovaries, lungs, and lobes of your liver.
ETA: Actually if you go with communal property in all things then wouldn't it require regulation of how people use those things? So if you borrow a hammer and it's not a demo hammer, using it to smash concrete could prevent it's use later by another person. Thus implicitly impacting anothers right to use? If this includes the person, then it limits peoples "use" of themselves, since smokers restrict the use of lungs, heavy drinkers the use of livers kidneys and pancreas (on current hosts demise), extreme sports participants place undue load on medical provisions, from self inflicted injury. Without the concept of ownership there's a whole bunch of issues to deal with. Now if you don't restrict use, how are you going to manage Maxwell, who borrows hammers for the sole purpose of throwing them into the sea?
1.) body parts are your own property. Human lives are not goods or services. If you define an embryo as a production output then you take away its right to not be bought or sold when it becomes a born baby, etc.
2.)That would be state ownership of goods being as they would be the ones regulating it, communal ownership is different. Hammers are a means of production so if people started destroying hammers then that would hurt society as a whole and would have to be stopped by the workers uniting to stop it.
If you have an item that is not a means of production in any literal sense, then you could give it away rather than destroying it. If there is too much 'stuff' in society (say an excess of trash) than the local federation as a whole will work to solve the issue.
If you has been reading any of my posts you'd know I say your body and your soul are your own private property.
1.) body parts are your own property. Human lives are not goods or services. If you define an embryo as a production output then you take away its right to not be bought or sold when it becomes a born baby, etc.
2.)That would be state ownership of goods being as they would be the ones regulating it, communal ownership is different. Hammers are a means of production so if people started destroying hammers then that would hurt society as a whole and would have to be stopped by the workers uniting to stop it.
If you have an item that is not a means of production in any literal sense, then you could give it away rather than destroying it. If there is too much 'stuff' in society (say an excess of trash) than the local federation as a whole will work to solve the issue.
If you has been reading any of my posts you'd know I say your body and your soul are your own private property.
I try to be realistic over ideological over how the system would work (and has worked).
If you have anything that seems seriously contradictory in terms of private rights I'd love to here it
Well, if utility items are communal, why does that stop at the person? Just... reasons?
Further what's considered a utility item? Take jewelry, my typical jewelry is platinum, palladium, rhodium (as pure metals or alloys) and some titanium. All are "industrial" metals either structurally or chemically as catalysts. That said would personal jewelry (even gold/silver which have utility in electrics/electronics) be utility items?
Who gets to decide when an item is not in use? Say you have an armory for self defense, and everything is "in use" because everyone wants a gun for defense. How do you determine Johns need is greater than Bobs? Does everyone vote and Bob gets screwed because he's fishing in bear country, but not hunting?
See in an an-cap world this is clearer. You own your body, and your jewelry and your guns. John wants to borrow a gun he comes over and asks, and he either is approved or rejected (and can go to someone else he knows). If John borrows a gun and throws it in the sea, John is liable for replacement (but is Maxwell?). It's a bit handwavy for my tastes.
Well, if utility items are communal, why does that stop at the person? Just... reasons?
Further what's considered a utility item? Take jewelry, my typical jewelry is platinum, palladium, rhodium (as pure metals or alloys) and some titanium. All are "industrial" metals either structurally or chemically as catalysts. That said would personal jewelry (even gold/silver which have utility in electrics/electronics) be utility items?
Who gets to decide when an item is not in use? Say you have an armory for self defense, and everything is "in use" because everyone wants a gun for defense. How do you determine Johns need is greater than Bobs? Does everyone vote and Bob gets screwed because he's fishing in bear country, but not hunting?
See in an an-cap world this is clearer. You own your body, and your jewelry and your guns. John wants to borrow a gun he comes over and asks, and he either is approved or rejected (and can go to someone else he knows). If John borrows a gun and throws it in the sea, John is liable for replacement (but is Maxwell?). It's a bit handwavy for my tastes.
1.) I explained this already. You have ownership to yourself. You can have no monopoly over means of production. Other items that are not used for production can be placed under your private usage but it can't be passed down to whoever you want since it is still technically communal property. As to why I explained more in depth here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
They're of your own private usage but you do not physical 'own' any of them (legally under the current system you do but that is besides the point).
They are neither a part of you nor are they yours by right. Practically it makes sense to have private usage of items and/or space (people shouldn't be sharing tooth brushes, that would be bad) but to consider them under your control beyond the point of usage is a dangerous slope to go through.
If you, and/or others are using a plot of land then functionally it is your right as a human to the shared earth we share. Once you start considering land a potential private ownership by someone then you go down the path of over-sizing their abilities and their individual contributions.
What one person produces is of that one person. Now if they 'own' (which has no real definition being as humans have no mental control over other materials besides themselves) land then their production output includes all the labor done on said land regardless of if it is done by themselves or by the labor of others. Such an excess of production not done by ones selves gives said person excess power that can be used to obtain more ownership of other resources and production capacities that then streamline the freedom of work through your hands.
Individual humans have a right to work on shared land, facilities, or what not without having to give their labor to others, the entire nature of that hierarchical system will not only lead to (decentralized) authoritarianism but is also inherent to the concept of slavery.
Now you may ask why 'owning' a tooth brush is dangerous but the mere fact that society would allow an autonomous human absolute control over something that is not them exceeds human nature, the laws of nature, and creates the ground work for private control of other goods and services that are more consequential.
2.) utility items like flash-lights aren't means of production. They may be indirectly involved in the process but they themselves can't be used exclusively to provide a service or produce a good. Same with metal alloys, the resources in which they originate from (the the mines, etc.) are where the production comes from, not the metals themselves.
3.) Guns can be used as a means of production via hunting (though not via providing a service (body guards) since such a service would be an 'employment' or purchase of labor which goes against the concepts of egalitarianism and leads down a slippery slope to de-centralized authoritarianism).
Now guns being produced for hunting can be used individually be someone who wants to hunt, skin, and cook an animal for themselves but if a person has no guns available to them by the the syndicate involved in its production (which shouldn't happen at all in this system as production is based off of needs) they have a right to use a gun that someone else is not using.
THAT BEING SAID, self-defense with guns is not done in the purpose of production so it cannot be the reason given to use a gun you have in your possession. Lets say (once again this wouldn't happen) that you have the only gun left in your neighborhood that you use for self defense. If someone wants to go hunting with the gun to feed themselves or others (as a group) then it is their right to use it as much as your right. But say they want to use the gun you have for their own self-defense then they have no right to use said gun. They are neither using it to produce something (so it can no longer be defined as a means of production) and self-defense relies on constant private usage so you are still using the gun for an equal purpose that the other person wants it and therefore it stays in your hands unless permission is given.
And if you don't trust that person (say they lie about wanting to hunt and they just want to use it for their own self-protection) you can find a third person to negotiate the situation or go to a local syndicate to ask for help to make sure he is using it for his desired purposes.
1.) I explained this already. You have ownership to yourself. You can have no monopoly over means of production. Other items that are not used for production can be placed under your private usage but it can't be passed down to whoever you want since it is still technically communal property. As to why I explained more in depth here:
2.) utility items like flash-lights aren't means of production. They may be indirectly involved in the process but they themselves can't be used exclusively to provide a service or produce a good. Same with metal alloys, the resources in which they originate from (the the mines, etc.) are where the production comes from, not the metals themselves.
3.) Guns can be used as a means of production via hunting (though not via providing a service (body guards) since such a service would be an 'employment' or purchase of labor which goes against the concepts of egalitarianism and leads down a slippery slope to de-centralized authoritarianism).
Now guns being produced for hunting can be used individually be someone who wants to hunt, skin, and cook an animal for themselves but if a person has no guns available to them by the the syndicate involved in its production (which shouldn't happen at all in this system as production is based off of needs) they have a right to use a gun that someone else is not using.
THAT BEING SAID, self-defense with guns is not done in the purpose of production so it cannot be the reason given to use a gun you have in your possession. Lets say (once again this wouldn't happen) that you have the only gun left in your neighborhood that you use for self defense. If someone wants to go hunting with the gun to feed themselves or others (as a group) then it is their right to use it as much as your right. But say they want to use the gun you have for their own self-defense then they have no right to use said gun. They are neither using it to produce something (so it can no longer be defined as a means of production) and self-defense relies on constant private usage so you are still using the gun for an equal purpose that the other person wants it and therefore it stays in your hands unless permission is given.
And if you don't trust that person (say they lie about wanting to hunt and they just want to use it for their own self-protection) you can find a third person to negotiate the situation or go to a local syndicate to ask for help to make sure he is using it for his desired purposes.
You said the physical being is not considered to be privately owned, but not why. No offense but to the person with chronic renal failure if you tissue match your kidney is a means of production, you double production by both you alive and productive.
In fact the more you tell me stuff the more hand wavy it becomes. Who defines items that qualify as "means of production" the person who wants to use it? So your bottle of 40 year old Laphroig is a critical means of production to my process. Platinum IS a means of production in modern chemistry and high tech, so why the discrepancy? It just seems arbitrary.
They make wigs from hair. What if I get a haircut? May I keep the cut hair to sell for a wig or do I lose ownership over it once the barber cuts it off? And is it now his hair to keep?
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.
