Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

No

[NRDL]

Yes, indeed, it is rather late, the institutions and systems set in place are quite stubborn.  But that doesn't mean things won't change.  Say, for example, the people of a country wanted these reforms, wanted them enough that the government acceded.  It would be tumultuous, no doubt, with the disorganization, lack of coordination between the government and the people, general chaos, etc.  But it is possible, change is always possible.   

[Criptfeind]

At this point I am comfortable in saying that it would be quite the bad thing to happen almost certainly. The big thing here is not the 'institutions and systems' but rather the fact that people already own the land in most places.

[NRDL]

Yes, right now, in countries like America and UK, this sort of thing would be very destabilizing, and might not do those countries a lot of good.  Where would this collectivism idea do some good?  I'm not actually so sure about that, you figure it out, this was a nice discussion.  Perhaps, this collectivism idea could be applied to other things, like resource management, business, other forms of decision making.  I'm really not sure. 

[kaijyuu]

Redistribution of wealth is nice and all, but I'm not sure the overall effects would be ultimately positive. I'm not quite sure what the overall effects would be at all, heh. Null vote.

[NRDL]

This idea of the community collective owning something is essentially communism, which is far from a bad thing.  I believe that communism and socialism aren't that popular anymore is because of the cold war, because of the actions of a communist nation, not the idea of communism itself.  Equal distribution of wealth and resources is actually, in theory, a pretty good idea, but the execution of it was flawed.  Humans are greedy, one man wants to be richer than the other, so unless the government or community is inherently un-selfish, then perhaps it could work. 

[IronyOwl]

land in Nunavut is cheaper than the dirt it's made of.

This right here is a major reason this works so well, as there's only so much that can go wrong. You start trying this in places anyone actually cares about, and the whole thing turns into a clusterfuck.

[mainiac]

The valuable real estate in the US is all urban.  Urban real estate isn't much use unless you have a degree of promise that you will retain ownership after you invest in it.  I'm all for the notion of setting up an anarcho-cooperative society like Catalonia in the late 30s.  But you cant start your cooperation with land sharing.  In a rural environment where people can be self sufficient it might make sense.  But in an urban environment where people are dependant on urban infrastructure for their livelyhoods, it's not viable unless there are other cooperative structures in place first.

[alway]

Equal distribution of wealth and resources is actually, in theory, a pretty good idea

No it isn't. Equal distribution of consumer-usable wealth and resources is a good idea. After all; the hell are people going to do with 5 units of a polymer used solely for manufacturing? A majority of resources can't be used by the average person directly, and most of said resources have multiple possible end-states. Aside from allocation issues, there are major issues with the underground economy. Say, for example, X knows a little about plumbing, but it's more of a hobby than anything else. Y knows X knows something about plumbing, and knows X pretty well as a friend. Y's pipes break one day, and as the issue is somewhat immediate, he calls X over to fix it so as to avoid waiting an hour or so for an actual plumber to come over while his house is slowly damaged by the leaking water. X fixes it, and in exchange for his trouble, Y gives him some of his stuff. That sort of thing will play out on a larger scale as people like X turn it into a small business; as no matter how much stuff is allocated to you, there will be many who will want more. Given enough time, the capitalist system will simply re-emerge unless you have a techno-utopia based on nanotech, ai, and virtual reality for production, management, and entertainment, respectively.

[Truean]

{Sorry this is quick, but I really don't have time to properly address it at present}
Some things to think about:

All of the following are meant as serious and respectful questions.

A.) Investments in Land: Where do the materials, labor, and money to build buildings and improvements on any land come from? When, if ever, is someone's investment in land protected under this proposed "community control" idea? That is, if someone provides money... ok maybe you'll be more comfortable with "labor" to build a house, building or other structure, then can the community still radically change that land? Can the community decide to tear down the structure they built? Can the community decide to alter what the property is used for (now it's storage instead of a house) If so when and under what circumstances? Is compensation required (eminent domain?).

B.) Bleed over effects (Nuisance): How would the community deal with neighbors and the various things they do to piss one another off? This has lots of flavors. Consider rainwater/sanitary sewer issues with water crossing property lines. Consider noise, light and air issues (his big building is casting a shadow and blocking light). Also smell might be a factor. Basically it goes to any conflicting use of land. In modern day California there is a big fight between and among environmentalists because the windmill (for wind power) casts a shadow over the neighbor's solar panels. How does the community solve this if both uses have been approved? How does the community deal with it if one of these uses has been approved and the other person wants a conflicting use of land?

C.) Maintenance: Along with who gets the land and pays for its improvements, consider who maintains it and pays for that. Also who is responsible for compliance with community ordinances about building, safety, and sanitation codes? Traditionally the answer is "the building owner," but if there is no owner.... Who has the duty to maintain the property, keep any structures in working, safe order, and pay any taxes on the land if applicable.

D.) Owner's and Occupier's Liability: Traditionally, owners of land owe various duties of care to individuals who are occupying or on their land. I know in this scenario there wouldn't be owners; the question is, who bares the responsibilities traditionally placed on the owners. The duties owed depend on the class of person: (discovered or undiscovered) trespasser, licensee (social guest), or invitee (someone there on business). This actually matters if say, there's a hole on the property, covered with cardboard old newspaper and newly fallen leaves, so it isn't readily visible. Traditionally, its the owner's job to make sure that stupid hole gets taken care of so no one falls into it and breaks a leg or something (oversimplified but...) Who would bear this responsibility without an owner?

E.) Subjacent and Lateral Support: In plain English, support of a property from underneath and the sides. Imagine a mining operation digging out large chunks of earth and minerals under land. Imagine a landscaping project, retaining wall, irrigation project or something else taking away side support from a piece of land (adjacent support). Who pays for or provides the retaining wall or support?

F.) Rights to occupy: Let's say the community thing happens some people are allowed to build things.... Some of them will be allowed to live in certain places.... Who gets what place and for how long? What happens after these original people eventually die or move? Speaking of moving, how is that handled on both ends: who gets your place after you leave and where do you get to live once you get where you're going? This can be oversimplified to "who gets what? why? when?"

G.) Infrastructure: Who pays for the sewer/septic system to be replaced when that needs done or otherwise provides for it? What happens if the work needs to be done but isn't? Who replaces and repairs pottable water network utilities and power systems? Generally, you could arguably use the same system today, but what about the house hookups and interior stuff (hence why sewer/septic was listed first). Septic tanks are usually a private property thing, can cost thousands of dollars to replace and are not covered by a utility company.

H.) Higher occupation density: If we get into more than just small houses, that would presumably mean something like either an apartment or a condo which would mean vertical living. Who gets to do what with the yard in that scenario? Who gets to decide what flowers to plant where or if they have a dog, where it goes? Who gets to determine if they can have a pool or something. Who is responsible for these additional outside things? Then there's the eternal bad word: "parking."

Again, these are meant as respectful notes and observations that would need to be addressed if something like this were to ever be considered. This is far from an exhaustive list but nonetheless is something to think about solving when pondering anything with property ownership or in this case I suppose use....

[mainiac]

Equal distribution of wealth and resources is actually, in theory, a pretty good idea

No it isn't. Equal distribution of consumer-usable wealth and resources is a good idea. After all; the hell are people going to do with 5 units of a polymer used solely for manufacturing? A majority of resources can't be used by the average person directly, and most of said resources have multiple possible end-states. Aside from allocation issues, there are major issues with the underground economy. Say, for example, X knows a little about plumbing, but it's more of a hobby than anything else. Y knows X knows something about plumbing, and knows X pretty well as a friend. Y's pipes break one day, and as the issue is somewhat immediate, he calls X over to fix it so as to avoid waiting an hour or so for an actual plumber to come over while his house is slowly damaged by the leaking water. X fixes it, and in exchange for his trouble, Y gives him some of his stuff. That sort of thing will play out on a larger scale as people like X turn it into a small business; as no matter how much stuff is allocated to you, there will be many who will want more. Given enough time, the capitalist system will simply re-emerge unless you have a techno-utopia based on nanotech, ai, and virtual reality for production, management, and entertainment, respectively.

I don't think a capitalist economy must emerge by default.  It is entirely possible for there to just be enough manufactured goods that we don't need to barter them.  Manufacturing productivity tends to get better and better all the time.  We compensate by having fewer people working in manufacturing with each passing decade and having the goods we manufacture be more and more expensive.

But consider the things that a person really needs before you reach the level of conspicuous consumption as opposed to simple utility.  You can have a few thousand dollars of electronics before you start to hit pretty sharply up against the level of diminishing returns.  Home appliances could account for a bit more before you are overspending but home appliances are naturally shared among the household or building so don't need to be all that much per capita.  Clothing would be dirt cheap if it didn't come with a brand name on it.  I'd be willing to bet that you don't own more then two or three outfits that couldn't be manufactured for under ten dollars.  Thus if we had some sort of cooperative society that somehow arbitrated that enough people go into manufacturing to provide these things for everyone and a few fewer people become waiters, basic manufactured goods sustenance wouldn't be all that hard.

Yes, this isn't a level of complete satiation.  I'm not mentioning expensive cars, lawn mowers, power tools (fun statistic: the average power drill runs for under a minute), hand crafted furniture and all that jazz.  But the difference between techno-utopia and what we would be capable of achieving with a relatively small portion of our population working in manufacturing for the common good isn't all that huge a gap.  As such, it is within the realm of imagination at least to have a society where the great bulk of people aren't dependent on either market or barter.  They might use them for extra comfort, but that's more a hobby to enhance enjoyment, not a way of life.  And even if I'm off, even if I'm off rather dramatically, productivity increases would make my statements true fairly rapidly.  Manufacturing productivity can easy increase by a few percentage points a year thanks to technology and increased capitol investment.  A few decades of compound interest and any reasonable minimum becomes attainable.  Of course we never will attain it as is thanks to the magic of intellectual property and social inequalities.

Not saying it would work, just saying possible in theory to have a cooperative system without capitalism needing to emerge.

[Haschel]

Wouldn't this just end up exactly where we are now? I mean it's more or less how things worked in the past- it's inevitable that greed, corruption, and religious zealots would bring the system back to the cycle of events we are already on. Things like this only work for as long as the people choose to support it- as soon as a few people decide they want something a bit more the system starts to break down.

[klingon13524]

It would work in a utopia or a village hundreds of years ago, put people are stupid. Some jerk would eventually make the council, arguments would erupt with no clear way to resolve them, ect. If humans were kinder to each other, it could work. But in today's 'society'?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

How do you embed videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

[Lagslayer]

As someone who supports the idea of private property, I do not believe this should be written into US national or state law. If some town or city or some sort of local government/community/management wants to do this, then that's their choice, but to force everyone to do this is unconstitutional and continues to strip people of their individuality. I like being an individual, and to not have my destiny tethered to everyone else.

[Muz]

It works very well if there is unlimited land. Here in Malaysia, land is dirt cheap in some places, but very expensive in others. Even more so when people stopped subsistence farming and split up their farmland. There was a problem like a few decades ago where families with 13 children had trouble splitting up enough paddy fields. So, yeah, while there's lots of land, you can have someone split it up, but as it starts getting rarer, esp. in cities, it comes down to private ownership.

What I do hate is people using money to make money, and privatized land has always been an easy investment there. Just buy land in a popular, unpolluted location, and it'll always go up, then resell it later to profit.

[aenri]

Very theoretically yes. But in reality no. In addition to legal problems that Truean touched, I have first hand experience with "collective ownership". I live in post-socialistic country, and the amount of collectivization was staggering.

The private property was continually denounced as capitalistic and evil and such, and it was very restricted (only personal items, and some moveables were allowed). Almost all property was "people's" or governmental, and people could only get it to possesion (not ownership). It had all to go through local governement (state/district national councils) - or informally through Communist party structures. The farmland was also collectivized into JRDs - something like kolkhozez in Russia. It was done that way, you were formally owner, but had no rights to your property (so called nuda propieta). There were so many problems with it (from little productivity to dissent of previous owners)...

But I want to touch the problems that came up after 40 years of destruction of private property - much property was without owners - the people died, and property changed hands but noone bothered to write it down because the property wasn't really his, the records were a total mess (many people came illegaly into ownership of such property), with which my country struggles even 20 years after revolution!