Lending, 2nd Homes and Travel in a Use and Occupation Economy

[CaptainJackJohnson]

I'm mulling over some thought experiments in a possession-based economy and encountering a number of sticking points. Usually when I encounter these, the argument I make is that it's not up to me to dictate how different anarchist communities would interpret these ambiguities, and that they should be left to decide amongst themselves, so I'd like to accept the opinions of others on these topics.

The first is lending. Let's say I have a reference book that I use regularly, but I have offered its use to a friend. What happens to my use-rights of possession? As I intend to resume use of it on return, does it become shared ownership? Upon return of the item, is my friend's claim to ownership invalidated? Or do I simply lose possession once I lend it to my friend, as I am no longer using (referencing) or occupying (storing in my home) the book, and am I therefore dependant on trusting that my friend will be honest with me?

The second is second homes, and I have two thought experiments for this.

a) I have built a log cabin in the woods which I use for hunting. I attend about once a month for a weekend, and spend week-long periods there during winter. If I find someone living there when I arrive, what happens? My argument would be that because I built the cabin with the intention of hunting from it, while the new occupant plans to live in it, the intention pre-dates and therefore supersedes his claim. But this then brings to question whether there is a minimum threshold of use for me to rely on my intention. For example, if I only attend during those winter periods, and find that someone had been living there all summer, have I attended often enough to kick him out?

b) I've travelled south and built a home in a warmer clime to live in during winter. One winter, I find a family have moved in. In this case, my argument would be that because I built the home as a home, I cannot occupy two homes simultaneously, so by living in my main home during summer, I forfeit my claim to my second home, as both rely on the same intention.

But this brings about my third question. What happens to my main home if I decide to spend a couple of years travelling and come back to find that someone has moved in? In this case, I would claim that because my home has been used during these two years as storage and I have fulfilled my intention to of returning, my claim invalidates the new occupant's. Again, this brings about the question of whether there is a maximum period of absence, as complications could arrive if, say, I go travelling, but then meet a woman in a foreign country and decide to settle there with her. Although I have abandoned my previous home and my intentions to return there, how is anyone to know? Of course, with modern communications, this last question is perhaps invalidated.

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed has a lot of answers for that.

If we moved into an entirely property-less society, I would go so far as to say that even a hammer in your hand is not exclusively yours. While for the sake of pragmatism and efficiency, in most cases, it would be better for you to continue to control it since you already possess it, I wouldn't say you have any inherent right to it. Merely that constantly switching control of the hammer around would be a hassle.

When would I support you losing control of the hammer? As the old communist phrase goes, "to each according to his need." If someone else needs that hammer to survive more than you do, then he has more right to it than you do. The more others need it, and the less you need it, then the more others deserve control.

For example, say I was holding a hammer, minding my own business, building a fence. Suddenly a girl runs by being chased by a rapist. I'm the only person around who can help her, but being the jerk that I am, I do nothing. In this scenario, the girl would deserve control of the hammer more than I do, if she wants to use it to defend herself.

The same would apply to a wealthy man who has lots of farmland, and a bunch of starving peasants who have no land.

For those who already live decent lives, the only way for them to maintain stability in a society like this, would be to help ensure everyone else also lives a decent life.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm mulling over some thought experiments in a possession-based economy and encountering a number of sticking points. Usually when I encounter these, the argument I make is that it's not up to me to dictate how different anarchist communities would interpret these ambiguities, and that they should be left to decide amongst themselves, so I'd like to accept the opinions of others on these topics.


I'll note upfront that I'm not an anarchist and that I'm expressing a personal opinion....





The first is lending. Let's say I have a reference book that I use regularly, but I have offered its use to a friend. What happens to my use-rights of possession? As I intend to resume use of it on return, does it become shared ownership? Upon return of the item, is my friend's claim to ownership invalidated? Or do I simply lose possession once I lend it to my friend, as I am no longer using (referencing) or occupying (storing in my home) the book, and am I therefore dependant on trusting that my friend will be honest with me?


This is too small-scale to be handled by any kind of universal policy, or 'law' -- if two people can't come to some kind of arrangement on this and stick to it then that's on them.





The second is second homes, and I have two thought experiments for this.

a) I have built a log cabin in the woods which I use for hunting. I attend about once a month for a weekend, and spend week-long periods there during winter. If I find someone living there when I arrive, what happens? My argument would be that because I built the cabin with the intention of hunting from it, while the new occupant plans to live in it, the intention pre-dates and therefore supersedes his claim. But this then brings to question whether there is a minimum threshold of use for me to rely on my intention. For example, if I only attend during those winter periods, and find that someone had been living there all summer, have I attended often enough to kick him out?


I see this as a matter of first-come-first-served, so it would be about formalism and communication -- I would think that if your schedule is simply posted and otherwise communicated, then that would be the default measure to go by, with any other extenuating situations handled appropriately as necessary.





b) I've travelled south and built a home in a warmer clime to live in during winter. One winter, I find a family have moved in. In this case, my argument would be that because I built the home as a home, I cannot occupy two homes simultaneously, so by living in my main home during summer, I forfeit my claim to my second home, as both rely on the same intention.


Ditto as above.





But this brings about my third question. What happens to my main home if I decide to spend a couple of years travelling and come back to find that someone has moved in? In this case, I would claim that because my home has been used during these two years as storage and I have fulfilled my intention to of returning, my claim invalidates the new occupant's. Again, this brings about the question of whether there is a maximum period of absence, as complications could arrive if, say, I go travelling, but then meet a woman in a foreign country and decide to settle there with her. Although I have abandoned my previous home and my intentions to return there, how is anyone to know? Of course, with modern communications, this last question is perhaps invalidated.


I'll agree that merely merging the offline and online worlds would be the key here, so that appropriate conversations would be enabled -- maybe any and every unattended domicile should have contact info posted on the outside, as a minimum.