Everything is free

[Redhead]

When wage slavery is abolished and everything is free, what would stop someone from taking more of his share?
For example: Theres a selfish guy in the neighbourhood who takes all the best bread in the supply, more than 10 times the amount of what he really needs. The result of this is that the other neighbours will have to satisfy with lower quality bread and some might not even get any.
How can we avoid this?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Doesn't that already happen today? I don't see the problem if someone wants a lot of bread, the community will just produce more bread if they can or they may have to shun him

[Chomskyan]

Doesn't that already happen today? I don't see the problem if someone wants a lot of bread, the community will just produce more bread if they can or they may have to shun him

lol The capitalist class takes 40% of the income, the Proletarians only take 2.3%.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

When wage slavery is abolished and everything is free, what would stop someone from taking more of his share?
For example: Theres a selfish guy in the neighbourhood who takes all the best bread in the supply, more than 10 times the amount of what he really needs. The result of this is that the other neighbours will have to satisfy with lower quality bread and some might not even get any.
How can we avoid this?

Wait, but why? What will the selfish guy do with the bread? Watch it go moldy? Are people actually just stupid/terrible?

Whatever, I'll run with the premise for a minute.

Just because everything is free doesn't mean "free for someone to hold privately". Like, probably "selfish guy" would just get a good thumping for his bad attitude before anyone would be allowed to go hungry.

[BIXX]

lol The capitalist class takes 40% of the income, the Proletarians only take 2.3%.
What about the other 57.7%? The petty bourgeoisie? They must be a bigger threat than previously thought.

Seriously though what were you trying to say with this post?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Seriously though what were you trying to say with this post?

Maybe he's saying that today there's inequality on a much more significant scale to contrast the OPs hypothetical situation, which is on such a small scale as to be negligible. At least that's what I took from his post.

[Slavic]

What about the other 57.7%? The petty bourgeoisie? They must be a bigger threat than previously thought.

Seriously though what were you trying to say with this post?

It is fairly obvious.

The OP is proposing that in a communist society there will be individuals who may take more food then that is needed.

The Fundamental Attribution Error reasoned that this type of activity already occurs in capitalist society and is not unique in a communist society, and Chomskyan illustrated this by providing statistics that show individuals taking more then that is needed in a communist society.

Now what to do with this "problem", I agree with Fundamental Attribution's method, but honestly I think that this type of problem will just be an outlier. It is most likely that hoarders would constitute the majority of these type of individuals and the problem should be treated with that in mind.

If I gave a random person a million dollars, I would be highly skeptical that he would purchase 500,000 toothbrushes because he is able to.

If I were to give a million dollars to a hoarder, I would be much more inclined to think that he would purchase 500,000 toothbrushes because he is able to.

[Bala Perdida]

It is fairly obvious.

The OP is proposing that in a communist society there will be individuals who may take more food then that is needed.

The Fundamental Attribution Error reasoned that this type of activity already occurs in capitalist society and is not unique in a communist society, and Chomskyan illustrated this by providing statistics that show individuals taking more then that is needed in a communist society.

Now what to do with this "problem", I agree with Fundamental Attribution's method, but honestly I think that this type of problem will just be an outlier. It is most likely that hoarders would constitute the majority of these type of individuals and the problem should be treated with that in mind.

If I gave a random person a million dollars, I would be highly skeptical that he would purchase 500,000 toothbrushes because he is able to.

If I were to give a million dollars to a hoarder, I would be much more inclined to think that he would purchase 500,000 toothbrushes because he is able to.
I don't think you addressed the post doxxer was referring to. Which is, what with the % 57.7? Does that nutriate the factors of production? That's my best guess

[Illegalitarian]

I am suspicious of those numbers and don't really understand what the post was trying to say as well.




To answer the OP's question, what's the use? Why on earth would someone take that much bread, just for fun?



Whenever riots break out people make a mad rush to grab arms full of whatever they can get, and people get trampled to death on Black Friday just for the chance at $50 off the new Tickle-Me-Elmo doll. It's usually examples such as these cited by those who support the claim of selfishness.

Thing is, people get whatever they can in abundance because we live in a commodity-based society where money and reigns supreme. They get what they can get when they can get it, but in a moneyless society post-capitalism there is no need for such a bad rush and no need to stockpile, because everything will constantly be available upon demand.

This is the nature of "hoarders" and "selfishness" in this context, aside from people who have legitimate psychological problems that cause them to horde (I doubt they will be some huge barrier for a communist society to leap past)

[Slavic]

I don't think you addressed the post doxxer was referring to. Which is, what with the % 57.7? Does that nutriate the factors of production? That's my best guess

Without knowing the exact statistics since there was no source produced, I would say that the %57.7 is petite bourgeoisie, but figuring out which class is exploiting the proles isn't even at discussion.

Chom wasn't trying to say look how much more money the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie makes. He was showing that a small amount of individuals "The Capitalists" take in more than what is needed.

The statistics is missing income per capita per class, which would demonstrate Chom's point more clearly. The Capitalist 40% figure doesn't tell you the quantity of Capitalists take in that 40% which is the main data point relevant to this discussion.

[tuwix]

When wage slavery is abolished and everything is free, what would stop someone from taking more of his share?
For example: Theres a selfish guy in the neighbourhood who takes all the best bread in the supply, more than 10 times the amount of what he really needs. The result of this is that the other neighbours will have to satisfy with lower quality bread and some might not even get any.
How can we avoid this?

According to Marx, the higher phase of communism will come, when there will be a great abundance of products. Then there fears of insufficient mount of bread will be irrelevant.

[Redhead]

My point is that even though they have no reason there will always be douchebags. Perhaps someone would do this as an act of protest. Perhaps an ex-burgeouise who tries to ruin the system.

[Palmares]

If you grow own ingredients for bread, and know how to make your own bread, you'll never go without it. If the bread thief doesn't know how to make bread, no point for them to steal your ingredients.

I propose giant electric fences around the fields of wheat, etc, and the bread stored in giant (refrigerated?) vaults. Also CCTV and guard dogs and Blackwater security.

And we can return to some useful old laws, like if you steal bread, you get sent as a convict to the colonies. Might sound like a holiday to some to come to Australia, but maybe a room in a detention centre might make you rethink that idea.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

When wage slavery is abolished and everything is free, what would stop someone from taking more of his share?
For example: Theres a selfish guy in the neighbourhood who takes all the best bread in the supply, more than 10 times the amount of what he really needs. The result of this is that the other neighbours will have to satisfy with lower quality bread and some might not even get any.
How can we avoid this?

First of all, why would there be a distinction between "best bread" and "lower quality bread" in the first place? One would expect production in socialism to be standardised so that quality is the same across the board.

Second, as people have already pointed out, why would anyone take more bread than they need? So they can be the king of bread? I mean, there are very hard limits on the ability of humans to consume. You can't wear three coats at the same time and you can't eat a hundred pies per day. The assumption here seems to be that:


My point is that even though they have no reason there will always be douchebags.

And that is a completely anti-materialist way of looking at things. How people behave is not a reflection of some timeless human nature, but of the material base of society. Today, people are competitive because the mode of production is such that competitive behaviour is rewarded. In socialism, there is literally no reason for someone to "be a douchebag" in this sense.

[Redhead]

Bread was just an example, there will always be better things. Lets replace it with cars. What if a guy is a car maniac and takes a lot of cars, leaving few left to the others.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Bread was just an example, there will always be better things. Lets replace it with cars. What if a guy is a car maniac and takes a lot of cars, leaving few left to the others.

Again, one would suppose that the quality of each model of car would be standardised across the board.

And again, what would the person do with all of those cars? He probably couldn't even park them anywhere. If he's causing problems, people would just take the cars - although as I said, he wouldn't have a reason for taking the cars in the first place.

[Quail]

Bread was just an example, there will always be better things. Lets replace it with cars. What if a guy is a car maniac and takes a lot of cars, leaving few left to the others.

I think in a society where everyone has access to the things we need and we no longer value things as status symbols... It's very unlikely that someone would do this. If they wanted to drive loads of different cars then maybe they would get pleasure from making and modifying their own cars or borrow different cars to drive on a race track.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think in a society where everyone has access to the things we need and we no longer value things as status symbols... It's very unlikely that someone would do this. If they wanted to drive loads of different cars then maybe they would get pleasure from making and modifying their own cars or borrow different cars to drive on a race track.

Yes, I think one of the problems is that many people put too much emphasis on the distinction between private and personal property and imagine that personal property in its present form (enforced by the state, divorced from use) would continue in the socialist society. I don't think that is at all true. In socialism, there wouldn't be "my" car and "your" car, but that car what I'm using and that car you're using. If I wanted your car, I would just phone you up to see if you need it at the moment, pretty much like we used to do with games and music CDs (and cassettes, the horror) when we were kids (although generally we would come bug each other in person, we wouldn't use phones).

[Illegalitarian]

This is really one of those things where you have to just.. well, think about it for a minute. Why is there some guy who randomly wants 42 cars for himself, now? What on earth could he possibly want them for? Why is there so much bread lust in a post-capitalist society?

I think this common fear among those who question the legitimacy of a moneyless system comes from the bourgeois notion of all of the world's poor being temporarily embarrassed millionaires who all strive to put themselves in a position where they can shower themselves in excesses, as if the one thing that keeps us all going is some strive to be on top.


Which just isn't true. If I had a billion $ right now I would still live in my comfy little trailer, sitting around toking it up and vegging out while watching you pinkos duke it out.. pretty much exactly what I'm doing now.

I'm willing to bet that I'm not alone on this one. I think most people just strive for a sustainable life for themselves and their families, a life where they can access the things they want and live a life relatively free from hard stress and dire problems.

As much as the bourgeois would like to think that we're all just "h8rz" who envy their riches and work as hard as we do with the hopes of one day having them, I think it's safe to say that people want money just so they can, you know, not live a life of destitution and uncertainty about whether or not they'll be able to feed themselves and their loved ones from one week to the next.

[Loony Le Fist]

Nothing is free. It is paid for somehow, but the burden is shared and distributed among everyone.

The only thing stopping someone from taking more than what makes sense economically in that case would be their own perception of the situation. Would they choose to see that situation as a chance to hoard get all they could get? Or would they see the situation as a chance to satisfy their need? Capitalism has trained our brains to take as much as we can get. The system has become part of our values--greed. Capitalism makes us all into bandits.

[consuming negativity]

Not everybody is rational, though. Yeah, most people aren't going to take lots and lots of bread for no reason, but say we have children who think it'll be hilarious to waste bread for entertainment value, or we have edgy teenagers who really want to burn something down because it'll be cool and they don't really understand the value of it. Socialization is a great tool and all, but the beginnings of socialist society will necessarily consist of persons who were reared within the capitalist system, and there will be a lot of progress to be made within the concept of socialism. To me, the answer to this is not just trusting reason, but also a bit of administration [of things] like Engels talked about. We don't want someone taking a billion cars to do something ridiculous with? We simply agree beforehand that anybody taking too much of X or Y or whatever has to consult the rest of us before they go and waste all of the shit we worked for. There is a big difference between top-down governing authority and side-to-side mutually-agreeable relationships. There is also a big difference between the governing of people and the administration of things. I don't really think the early stages of socialism will be "here you go, take whatever you want, doesn't matter who you are or what you've done" or anything close to that. Gift economies are a good idea but there is a reason Marx talked about progress within socialism.

[Illegalitarian]

I don't think roving gangs of unattended children and pyromaniacs are a big enough problem that we need such an agreement.

Over time such an agreement would become an unspoken more of society, it would be so highly looked down upon to waste something for the sake of wasting it or to take a shit load of something for no reason that hardly anyone would do it, and those who did would probably be confronted and shamed out of it.

Until then, though, I'm not convinced at all that it's a problem that needs addressing, or even a problem at all.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That just sounds like the regular old "people are naturally selfish" argument presented in different language. What would the act of wasting bread even mean without a monetary system? I imagine there will be plenty of useless shit to burn down post-revolution, billboards, poorly constructed mcmansions, etc. and how would one person take billions of cars anyhow?

[JahLemon]

Hoarding is a mental illness, no?

[Illegalitarian]

That just sounds like the regular old "people are naturally selfish" argument presented in different language. What would the act of wasting bread even mean without a monetary system? I imagine there will be plenty of useless shit to burn down post-revolution, billboards, poorly constructed mcmansions, etc. and how would one person take billions of cars anyhow?

Why billboards? With the death of financial barriers to entry, any group of people with an idea for a new product or piece of technology could come together and make said project a reality, so I imagine a communist society would give birth to an extremely wide array of choices when it comes to every day goods and the like.

I think advertisement still has a role to play in such a world, for the purpose of informing the average joe of new and exciting things.


Still plenty of shit to burn down, though. What else are we going to do with the countless white-collar office buildings that used to house now obsolete jobs such as accounting, real estate management, anything related to the financial sector etc? Lots of useless middle-management comfy distribution-based jobs like that are created every year for the sake of maintaining a work model, as Bob Black put it.

Surely they can't be allowed to sit around and rot like old soviet flats. Down with them, I say!

[Illegalitarian]

Hoarding is a mental illness, no?

Yeah, it is, but it's about not being mentally able to throw away old useless trash, or differentiate between what is garbage and what isn't. It's not characterized by buying things in mass for no reason, though I'm sure there's a disorder of that nature too.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Fuck that, there's one directly over my place. That thing is getting burned on day one, I wanna see the sky

[Illegalitarian]

It would be pretty cool to see some historic image of a billboard against a clear blue sky, all of a sudden exploding into pieces, reminiscent of the video of the swastika being blown off the Reichtag.

Oh okay fine, no billboards then:laugh:

[consuming negativity]

It would be pretty cool to see some historic image of a billboard against a clear blue sky, all of a sudden exploding into pieces, reminiscent of the video of the swastika being blown off the Reichtag.

Oh okay fine, no billboards then:laugh:

Who died and made you billboard arbitrator? I demand a vote within each settlement for each individual billboard, lasting one month so as to give every comrade a chance to visit each billboard before casting the vote on whether or not that billboard should be subject to being torn down. It's the only reasonable way to go about this.

[Illegalitarian]

We will form a worker's committee for further discussions on the fate of highway 70 billboard #354, elect instantly revocable delegates and vote whether or not to allow them to engage the delegates of the worker's committee for projects along highway 70

[consuming negativity]

We will form a worker's committee for further discussions on the fate of highway 70 billboard #354, elect instantly revocable delegates and vote whether or not to allow them to engage the delegates of the worker's committee for projects along highway 70

I don't disagree with any of this hypothetically-speaking, but I feel as though my interests are not being represented here. There is no article in the commune constitution allowing for the formation of worker's committees, discussions, billboards, delegates, votes, or projects, and I don't think it's appropriate for you to be deciding things or giving opinions without having consulted the rest of us. Yes, it would be easier to just do things, but we can't act without consulting the others lest we become the Stalinists ourselves. We can show that we are better than they are by meticulously and pain-stakingly taking every step possible to maximize democracy to the largest extent possible. If, of course, all of our comrades are in voluntary agreement and have not been somehow coerced by my writing this. And, if not, I'm not sure what to do. There's not much food left because all of the farmers are in the town hall working on deciding who is allowed to call discussions on whether or not we should be having discussions, and I don't think I can last another night without water or heat in this weather. Do you think I can get them to vote to allow me to drink something from the well?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

any comrade who starves to death during a vote will have their ballots invalidated thus eventually overcoming the bottleneck.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Federalist deviations!

The General Affairs Section of the Executive Committee of the Central Soviet will authorise the Extraordinary Commission for the Suppression of Localism to raise units of the workers' militia to shoot the splitters.

Later, the billboard proposal will be tabled with the Urban Planning Section.

Voting is scheduled to take place in seven years.

[Redhead]

Not everybody is rational, though. Yeah, most people aren't going to take lots and lots of bread for no reason, but say we have children who think it'll be hilarious to waste bread for entertainment value, or we have edgy teenagers who really want to burn something down because it'll be cool and they don't really understand the value of it. Socialization is a great tool and all, but the beginnings of socialist society will necessarily consist of persons who were reared within the capitalist system, and there will be a lot of progress to be made within the concept of socialism. To me, the answer to this is not just trusting reason, but also a bit of administration [of things] like Engels talked about. We don't want someone taking a billion cars to do something ridiculous with? We simply agree beforehand that anybody taking too much of X or Y or whatever has to consult the rest of us before they go and waste all of the shit we worked for. There is a big difference between top-down governing authority and side-to-side mutually-agreeable relationships. There is also a big difference between the governing of people and the administration of things. I don't really think the early stages of socialism will be "here you go, take whatever you want, doesn't matter who you are or what you've done" or anything close to that. Gift economies are a good idea but there is a reason Marx talked about progress within socialism.

This was a better explanation of what i was talking about, and it pretty much answeared my question.
Thank you :)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Not everybody is rational, though. Yeah, most people aren't going to take lots and lots of bread for no reason, but say we have children who think it'll be hilarious to waste bread for entertainment value, or we have edgy teenagers who really want to burn something down because it'll be cool and they don't really understand the value of it. Socialization is a great tool and all, but the beginnings of socialist society will necessarily consist of persons who were reared within the capitalist system, and there will be a lot of progress to be made within the concept of socialism. To me, the answer to this is not just trusting reason, but also a bit of administration [of things] like Engels talked about. We don't want someone taking a billion cars to do something ridiculous with? We simply agree beforehand that anybody taking too much of X or Y or whatever has to consult the rest of us before they go and waste all of the shit we worked for. There is a big difference between top-down governing authority and side-to-side mutually-agreeable relationships. There is also a big difference between the governing of people and the administration of things. I don't really think the early stages of socialism will be "here you go, take whatever you want, doesn't matter who you are or what you've done" or anything close to that. Gift economies are a good idea but there is a reason Marx talked about progress within socialism.

Have you ever been a kid? Kids break and burn stuff mostly because people tell them not to. By making a big deal out of it, you're making Johnny MacHoarderpants (or his cousin, MacPantshoarder) into a fetishistic figure instead of "that guy who takes too much and no one really wants to talk to him because he's sort of a dick".

[consuming negativity]

Have you ever been a kid? Kids break and burn stuff mostly because people tell them not to. By making a big deal out of it, you're making Johnny MacHoarderpants (or his cousin, MacPantshoarder) into a fetishistic figure instead of "that guy who takes too much and no one really wants to talk to him because he's sort of a dick".

No, I have never been a child. My mother actually gave birth to me after eighteen straight years of pregnancy. She's the strongest woman in the world and I love her dearly. :crying:

When I was a child, up until I was maybe 14-16, I rarely ever purposefully disobeyed my parents. Most of the time I wouldn't even ask permission because I knew I'd be told "no", and so instead I'd just do it and make sure I wouldn't get caught. Why? Because the reason wasn't as some "fuck you" to them for being controlling; I did deviant and/or destructive things because I thought it'd be fun, interesting, or that I'd get rewarded by my peers for it. Now that I think about it, actually, most of the shit I did was just simply really fucking dangerous. Things that I probably would not let my own child do if they were to ask me if they could. But that's just how it works.. you say "no", they do it anyway, you find out and forgive them because they're just bored kids who want to laugh.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

But what makes the simple destruction of things, things that don't belong to you especially, so entertaining in the first place? Why did it feel so good? Even if no one explicitly forbade you from destroying that specific object

[consuming negativity]

But what makes the simple destruction of things, things that don't belong to you especially, so entertaining in the first place? Why did it feel so good? Even if no one explicitly forbade you from destroying that specific object

I never broke anything for the sake of breaking it; I broke things to serve a specific means to an end. To have a trophy for my accomplishment, to use the thing to do something else even more fun, or just because breaking it would look really cool and I wanted the experience. The threat of authority was a way to raise the stakes and stack the odds against myself to see how far I could push my limits. But it was no better or worse than, say, doing something difficult on a skateboard, which was another hobby of mine as a teen. Challenge is the point, and there are a variety of ways to challenge yourself. I like thrills, yes, but roller-coasters don't appeal to me. Any idiot can sit in a roller-coaster and ride it to the end. But how many people can say they've done some of the shit I have? Not just did it, but got away with it? Not many. Even if they could physically or mentally do it, among those people they'll get scared or think it's too risky or make some other excuse as to why they're somehow above it because they spend their lives running on the hamster wheel of capitalism. But they're just cowards who have been coddled and who think their accomplishments mean anything when anybody could succeed in continuing a boring white bread middle class life if they were born into it. I could have it if I really wanted it, even in spite of my poverty from birth, but I just don't. Things mean shit to me; I'm about experiences and feelings and enjoying my life. Challenging and engaging and entertaining myself. Does this make sense?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No, well sort of. What turned the broken object into a 'trophy', what were you displaying? Theres obviously a property relationship of some kind at play, which makes it significant.

[consuming negativity]

No, well sort of. What turned the broken object into a 'trophy', what were you displaying? Theres obviously a property relationship of some kind at play, which makes it significant.

Nah like, the reason I put all of that unrelated stuff in the post is because the destruction wasn't the purpose. For example, as a kid, we stole the massive "welcome" sign from the apartment complex I lived in. We used it as a bike ramp set up against a drainage pipe so we could launch way up high into the air. We had no other ramps so we used their sign so we could have fun. We really liked stealing signs, and we had a STOP sign and some other shit too hidden in the woods. Why? Because we could!

For the "trophies", which makes me feel like I'm a fucking serial killer or something, I'm really into urban exploration and sometimes I'll take things to remember it by if I find something particularly interesting that won't actually destroy the buildings for other people. Once, for example, I stole the no trespassing sign that they had bolted onto the building. Another time I took this: http://i.imgur.com/dePKAmE.jpg . I found it covered in dust and asbestos and it was most likely dropped by someone else who had been there before. It's like a yearbook... just something so you can sit and have an excuse to remember something cool you did. Maybe you guys as kids really liked to just give a big middle finger to "the man", but honestly, I really didn't hold it against the cops when they caught us and treated us like shit. I expected it. It was part of the experience as much as anything else.

[Erfurt 1891]

I think that people fail to realise that in communism there will be no value as it exists in capitalism. Value form is specific form for capitalist production and it will be destroyed with capitalist relations.

So, according to that nothing will be free (and everything will be free at the same time), because "free" is value form you add to something that has 0 as monetary value in capitalist system.

[dudell65]

Do people in first-world countries today try and hoard tap water? No, and its not just the water bill that prevents them from doing so. If you know that water, or bread, will be readily available, you have no motive to take more than you would want.

[tuwix]

My point is that even though they have no reason there will always be douchebags. Perhaps someone would do this as an act of protest. Perhaps an ex-burgeouise who tries to ruin the system.

Then the people should make an order with such protesters. Militia should care such sabotage.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Is there going to be enough resources for me to have my own plane? I FUCKING HATE riding on planes with other people. I can share it, as long as we're not on it at the same time.

[Bala Perdida]

Is there going to be enough resources for me to have my own plane? I FUCKING HATE riding on planes with other people. I can share it, as long as we're not on it at the same time.
Lol. I want to have my own yacht too. Because obviously thats so fucking necessary.
"Under capitalism I can save up and have a yacht and corvette! It's impossible to have that under socialism!"
"I know! That's why ideally your kind won't be around in socialism." Lol. Then I get thrown out of economics class.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Lol. I want to have my own yacht too. Because obviously thats so fucking necessary.
"Under capitalism I can save up and have a yacht and corvette! It's impossible to have that under socialism!"
"I know! That's why ideally your kind won't be around in socialism." Lol. Then I get thrown out of economics class.

I don't think it's too much to ask. You'll just have to let others use the yacht when you aren't using it

[Bala Perdida]

I don't think it's too much to ask. You'll just have to let others use the yacht when you aren't using it
I wasn't being serious

[Redistribute the Rep]

I realized your post was made in jest but it just seemed like something that needed a reply

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Practical point:
Hoarding cars (or houses, or whatever) is incredibly logistically difficult. Without a police force keeping someone from moving into an empty house is something less than feasible. Ten cars? Yeah, good luck with that.

[Dave B]

Actually ordinary working class people do have (access to) yachts; they form syndicates of say 10-20 and take turns with it.

It takes a variety of forms in other expensive pursuits and people form themselves into clubs or whatever.

You can even drive around in a stretch limousine for day and it is well within the financial bracket for a group of individuals.


Not my thing though


I have gone on holiday for a fortnight on an inland waterway cruiser and that wasn’t prohibitively expensive.

If people want to hoard stuff that will fine.

We will give them a large open-doored building with thousands of commodities in it neatly stacked on shelves etc and if anyone turns up to take anything we will ask them to make a careful record of what was taken and promise to promptly replace it.

[Bala Perdida]

Actually ordinary working class people do have (access to) yachts; they form syndicates of say 10-20 and take turns with it.

[SIZE=3]It takes a variety of forms in other expensive pursuits and people form themselves into clubs or whatever.
Sounds like timeshare. I don't care for yachts or jets. If I found enough people than I would lend the car out, but my mom is most of the owner so I can't do that much. I gotta buy it off her and then I'll make a pool. Although I do let trusted people drive it.