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.
Stephen: You obviously don't understand the point about methodological individualism, how it applies to ownership, or why Long and Holcombe are wrong. What you've made clear is that you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
You obviously don't understand the point about methodological individualism, how it applies to ownership, or why Long and Holcombe are wrong. What you've made clear is that you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
Stephen, why are you so rude?
Pablo: All it achieves is to making yourself seem pompous, arrogant, and rude.
All it achieves is to making yourself seem pompous, arrogant, and rude.
getting Ad hominem?
Pablo: Use your vastly superior knowledge to come to the conclusion that people react kindly to people who show them respect, and negatively to those who do not. If you ever intend to impart your massive intellect on us mere mortals, then your being rude is negatively impacting your goal. I hope you come to understand that your action is irrational according to your goal (if indeed it is your goal). If your being on these forums is to simply demonstrate to us all how radically intelligent you are, there are forums with much less intelligent people. Perhaps you will have more luck at some of those celebrity gossip forums.
Use your vastly superior knowledge to come to the conclusion that people react kindly to people who show them respect, and negatively to those who do not. If you ever intend to impart your massive intellect on us mere mortals, then your being rude is negatively impacting your goal. I hope you come to understand that your action is irrational according to your goal (if indeed it is your goal). If your being on these forums is to simply demonstrate to us all how radically intelligent you are, there are forums with much less intelligent people. Perhaps you will have more luck at some of those celebrity gossip forums.
Why are you being so rude?
Stephen:Ownership is an action, and actions are not performed by groups.
Further, Holcombe makes a very good case for paths being "owned in common" by those who travel them each day and contribute to the maintenance of them. I suppose you could call it unowned, but since no one person could simply arbitrarily state that the path is his or hers and keep everyone else out (as no one person has homesteaded it), it is essentially a common property. The group of individuals which created it can keep others off, but not those within the group. At least not unless one person makes a significant effort, such as using his or her money to pave the path or whatever.
You may not like it, Stephen, but at least consider it. Just flying off the handle as you did really shows poor form.
Pablo:Use your vastly superior knowledge