What would be all the problems with a property-less society?

title10char

 

#1 - People like stuff

 

How are you defining "property?" If broadly to include basic life, liberty, family property, people will revolt rather quickly en masse. If narrowly, and you mean only real property, massive waste results. No one is willing to expend much effort, and especially not take any risk, on communal property. If you are including real property and savings in today's world and state of technology, people with means (otherwise known as the tax base) will quickly vote with their feet.

Look around, most of what you see that is beneficial to society, and what you use in your daily life (like the computer you are typing on) would cease to exist instantly without strong property rights in the legal regime.

 

For Constitutional absolutists who believe in Lockean principles of life, property and liberty, this would be a nightmare. They see right to liberty and property as being similar -- their loss is indicative of tyranny. Since money is property, they see taxation as theft.

 

You may want to ask Cambodians who went through the hell known as the Khmer Rouge.

 

Most of that KR stuff is just right wing propaganda - the UN even supported Pol Pot during the 1980's - so enuff already...

 

It's difficult to get people to work without the labor theory of property. You make some food and shelter, guess what, it's not yours!

 

Dude, they only killed somewhere in the neighborhood om 2 million people. 'Cause...you know...the killing fields never happened!

 

When one person's amount of property becomes so large as to adversely affect another, then problems begin.

 

you mean like if we were to travel in space, where no one owns property, they more or less just get a room of their own?

 

300,000 is about the correct figure for executions.

Please do not just parrot the Lonely Planet guide book.

- - - Updated - - -

How would an average citizen know anyway?

- - - Updated - - -

It depends how much land is available.

 

So what book did you use to come up with that number and what possibly could make you an above average citizen?

 

Who is dumb enough to want to live in Cuba writ large?

 

Supposedly left wing atrocities are always exaggerated by the right - most history books put the number around the 1 million mark, though of course they tend to gloss over factors concerning realism.

As for 300K, try Michael Vickery.

 

But how important is it really that everyone "work?" And when you say "work," do you really mean work, as in taking care of food and shelter? 'Cause I think people do that pretty much on their own. What they don't do is spend most of their lives in a factory making rich people richer -- in order to get them to do that, you need some kind of economic system that requires them to do so. And when they do work in that factory, building and making and constructing, it's not theirs, is it?

 

The problem with no personal ownership of property is that people will neglect said property. This is something that can be witnessed easily in college dorm environment, ever see what people do to say communal microwaves and bathroom facilities when its not their responsibility to maintain it? Many people only care about things when it is theirs... or the consequences for destroying others property are very steep.

 

You don't understand economics! At some point, someone needs to work. How are you going to reward those who need to do it?

 

Oh, only around one million people...yeah, I don't see how anyone would have a problem with that...Chill out everyone, it was only around one million human beings that lost their lives, nothing to see here.

Oh, and Vickery pegs the total to be between 740,800 and 1,000,000. Of course, most academics reject his conclusions as being absurdly low but even Vickery's low-side guess puts it at more than twice your 300,000. It would seem that you're actually the one doing the exaggerating (aka lying) here.

 

no, he puts 300K as the figure for executions - the higher numbers refer to those that died of other causes, which could have happened anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

of course they do, because they are Western, rightist liberals.

 

Well, as Hobbist, I would agree that materiality is of critical importance to existence. That freedom stuff is just nonsense. We must yield to the absolute sovereign to avoid the war of all against all. Freedom is just our lack of opposition by the forces of said sovereign.

 

John wants the freedom to kill puppies and grannies. Denying John his freedom is tyranny.

 

Let's assume that you're right and there were only 300,000 executions. Forget about the other 400,000+ excess deaths for a moment. That's still around 5% of the total population at the time! And you're here defending this POS...

 

I'M Having a problem with this one. If we don't own stuff than who would own stuff ? The government or the King or the Wizard of Oz ? Who would be in charge of stuff ? Somebody has to be in charge of stuff or no one will take care of the stuff ,so someone has to be the owner of the stuff. I own my house and the LAND it's on .I don't charge you if you want to come in my yard but the government charges you to go on the parks that we pay for with taxes. I guess you should get rid of your stuff to me and if you want to use it every once and a while I 'll let you, but If you give it to the government ,they 'll let you use it and charge you too. So give me your stuff if you don't want it and I'll take care of it. Thanks

 

Without stuff, there would be no causes and effects.

 

First off, some of those 300K were criminals or subversive agents, who would have been punished anyway under any other regime - I believe in the Western nations of today, there exist buildings known as jails - correct?

So, what's the big deal, or do you just disagree with the death penalty;

And, how about the villagers bombed by US warplanes?