I don't think that there's anything really wrong with communal property. As long as it's completely voluntary... and it's not owned by the state I don't see what's wrong with it. Communal property- collective property in a market society... it would be like joint ownership. It would take joint action... I mean I just think that for like some things like roads... if a group of city industrialists want to get together and build a road they can have communal property that way... we can have group ownership (completely voluntary ownership too).
I'm not suggesting that everything be owned by the state... but this would be without the state ownership of it. I know that most people are against it if it's public property owned by the state- but if we could have communal property owned by a group of individuals... who make the choice to do it themselves and have some sort of framework for how they would have a joint committees to deal with the property that wouldn't be wrong would it? I just want to know what other people think of my idea... because like I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with communal property as long as it's voluntary and not coercive and people want to do it. Is there anything wrong and contradictory with that? A lot of criticisms from the left on libertarianism comes on this front but I've thought of this as a solution to it... and... like this would be okay right? Unless I'm misunderstanding something I don't see why this wouldn't be consistent with austrian economics- and just again- I'm not advocating for state coercion... but a voluntary partnership by a group of individuals.
Nothing is wrong with it. It is not very efficient, but if they can make it work among themselves then who cares. If 10 people went as far as to register themselves as a single person it`s totaly fine by me. Here is an example of communities that made it work for themselves before they came under attack by the government: http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/doukhobor_settlement.htmlThe reason we insist on induvidualism is that it is the only thing you can build a coherent theory of justice on. But it is not a requirement for a small, close knit community where people genuinley care for one another to have a very sophisticated theorethical understanding of rights in order to resolve disputes in a just way. There is no reason a Marxist-Leninist parent can not arbiter a dispute between his underage children over a toy as well as an Ancap parent could.
As I've said before, ownership is the privilege to exclude. For that matter, non-exclusivity is not possible. A commune in reality is merely arbitrary sharing by the owner of the communal land with others and can as such be revoked by him at any time. Ultimately, everything that transpires on what outsiders regard as his property must pass his inspection. It is the same as my cousin letting me stay in his house when I went to Britain.
Stephen: David.: There's no reason why a group of people shouldn't be allowed to live on a commune. And there's no reason why (assuming they could kick people out) that it couldn't be ok. Yeah, but praxeologically, ownership is individual. Groups can't own property. It violates methodological individualism.
David.: There's no reason why a group of people shouldn't be allowed to live on a commune. And there's no reason why (assuming they could kick people out) that it couldn't be ok.
There's no reason why a group of people shouldn't be allowed to live on a commune. And there's no reason why (assuming they could kick people out) that it couldn't be ok.
Yeah, but praxeologically, ownership is individual. Groups can't own property. It violates methodological individualism.
Try to kick your wife out of the house!
Wasn't this year Nobel for someone studying the efficiency of non-state governance of commons?
Did they utilize praxeology, or did they use mechanical measures of 'efficiency' ? I'm not opposed to their work; P Klein, seems to be a fan on some levels. I'm just asking questions.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Stephen:Yeah, but praxeologically, ownership is individual. Groups can't own property. It violates methodological individualism.
Stephen: Stranger: Communal property is non-exclusive, which in a world of scarcity means it will be destroyed and ruined in no time. I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that common use of a scarce resource will always lead to capital consumption. In small groups, social control can mitigate overconsumption. It's also possible to have joint ownership of a unit of land with the obligations and rights of each owner legally enforced.
Stranger: Communal property is non-exclusive, which in a world of scarcity means it will be destroyed and ruined in no time.
Communal property is non-exclusive, which in a world of scarcity means it will be destroyed and ruined in no time.
I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that common use of a scarce resource will always lead to capital consumption. In small groups, social control can mitigate overconsumption. It's also possible to have joint ownership of a unit of land with the obligations and rights of each owner legally enforced.
Then that is no longer common property.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
scineram: Wasn't this year Nobel for someone studying the efficiency of non-state governance of commons?
I believe so, communal ownership at the local level. And the thing is, I believe she was an Austrian economist (don't quote me on that) according to FEE (I believe, don't quote me on that).
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
SilentXtarian:I don't think that there's anything really wrong with communal property. As long as it's completely voluntary... and it's not owned by the state I don't see what's wrong with it. Communal property- collective property in a market society... it would be like joint ownership. It would take joint action... I mean I just think that for like some things like roads... if a group of city industrialists want to get together and build a road they can have communal property that way... we can have group ownership (completely voluntary ownership too).
Long has some articles on public property here and here.
BTW, can't you write in complete sentences?
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Knight_of_BAAWA: Stephen:Yeah, but praxeologically, ownership is individual. Groups can't own property. It violates methodological individualism.A group of individuals can own property. Surely you wouldn't deny that, for denial would fly in the face of reality.
If I own a plot of land and my neighbour owns an adjacent plot of land, then we commonly own both plots of land, right? Can you think of an example of common ownership that could not be resolved into seperate individual ownership? Because, I'm pretty sure that is what would fly in the face of reality.
I haven't read both of Long's works. I don't think it's worth the time. I'm pretty sure that for praxeological reasons, property is always individually owned. Only individuals can have possession and control over economic goods (i.e. property). Describing property as commonly owned, and meaning other than an aggregate of individual ownership, entails a holistic fallacy.
A group of people pool their money and buy some land. You can resolve this into individual ownership of a kind if you like, but I see no reason that that's a better way of looking at it than the obvious way of describing it. Will their use of the land be inefficient? Probably - but inefficiency is not necessarily a reason not to do something, if you don't wish to earn the maximum profit, but merely to be happy, and this makes you happy.
Now a worker's co-op is a different story, because it itself introduces some efficiencies and it isn't so clear that it is less efficient than, say, a corporation.
Stephen: I haven't read both of Long's works. I don't think it's worth the time. I'm pretty sure that for praxeological reasons, property is always individually owned. Only individuals can have possession and control over economic goods (i.e. property). Describing property as commonly owned, and meaning other than an aggregate of individual ownership, entails a holistic fallacy.
I am saying that either common ownership is shorthand for a number of individuals owning property each individually in the same way that an organization owns property or else the concept is fallacious, as it is used by Long and Holcombe.
It would seem to me that communal property could be as simple as a two-man partnership or as complex as a complete town owning something. Whether either works well or not seems to me to depend upon the incentive structure that is imposed on the effort. A partnership can succeed or fail based on project choice and then incentives. But so can a town, based on the same two factors. In general, partnerships should succeed more often than towns because their motive is profit (presumably) and that provides a guidebook for how decisions should be made and whether in fact they are successful. Presumably the residual value problem is less in a partnership where partners have invested up front in the hopes of getting something on the back end. The communal issue for a partnership is also simpler where it is only partners and their families or approved close friends. To that extent it may work similar to a private golf club.
A town effort implies that everyone living within certain boundaries are members. "Investment" presumably came from taxes, allowing all to think they are owners and meddle in the management. It is harder to push a profit goal because of the tax dollars. It is also harder to get agreement when no one is an owner, perhaps no one has organizational or business skills and every parent has a different idea of how the place should be run. No one has any "skin" in the game and the residual values are minute when divided over so many more "owners." Furthermore, the residual value may never come in the sense that the entity theoretically has an infinite life like a corporation. A few members cannot vote to terminate it. Only if it cannot be funded by continued tax dollars or not be self-supporting will it close. Then, presumably there is no residual value (land reverts back to the town).