Private property.

[Noah]

Okay so in communist society there is no private property.

Here, when you buy a house, depending on your money you can have big rooms or small rooms.

But how will houses be distributed in communist society?

Say if one wanted bigger bedrooms because one would like bigger spaces or need more room for work or so on, or a hobby then how would this work, would one have that freedom?

Say if one has a nice house with a nice back garden and someone is trampling on it, attacking the flowers or standing on it and doing something dodgey, perhaps dealing something like drugs or pissing on your hedge, are you allowed to remove them?

Also, alot of people here in UK purchase their houses, whether they are council or they move onto the property ladder for more space, security, comfort and other r reasons, what do you guys think of this? Do you condemn it because now one 'has their own land' and this makes them not working class?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Okay so in communist society there is no private property.

Here, when you buy a house, depending on your money you can have big rooms or small rooms.

But how will houses be distributed in communist society?

Say if one wanted bigger bedrooms because one would like bigger spaces or need more room for work or so on, or a hobby then how would this work, would one have that freedom?

It's need based distribution. If the materials supply does not need to be rationed, its based on what you think you need. Outrages proposals will be thrown out of course.


Say if one has a nice house with a nice back garden and someone is trampling on it, attacking the flowers or standing on it and doing something dodgey, perhaps dealing something like drugs or pissing on your hedge, are you allowed to remove them?

In a sense yes. However, the relationship with property will change. Why would someone be hanging around your house with no purpose there? They would have their own place (which most people who loiter don't have).

[elmo sez]

Also, alot of people here in UK purchase their houses, whether they are council or they move onto the property ladder for more space, security, comfort and other r reasons, what do you guys think of this? Do you condemn it because now one 'has their own land' and this makes them not working class?

When you say purchase , they purchase it with a mortgage that most of them will spend a life time paying off/never pay off so technically until you pay off the loan the bank owns your house.

Remember its all to do with your relationship to the means of production not necessarily if you own your own house and lets face it not many people truly own there own house.

[Noah]

Yeah elmo_sez that's true, the bank does own your house for most people.

Violencia.Proletriat. What I mean is say if, someone was trying to get on your nerves or some people are drunk and causing havoc on [your] lawn, can you take them off as technically it's not your's right?

[The Grey Blur]

You'd go out and beat them over the head with a hurley stick

http://www.sfgaa.org/guide/images/hurlies.jpg

Maybe two

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 29 2006, 12:50 PM
You'd go out and beat them over the head with a hurley stick

http://www.sfgaa.org/guide/images/hurlies.jpg

Maybe two
QFT, hurley sticks are nasty in a fight

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:56 PM


Violencia.Proletriat. What I mean is say if, someone was trying to get on your nerves or some people are drunk and causing havoc on [your] lawn, can you take them off as technically it's not your's right?
This isn't so much a property issue, its a social issue. Everyone would be living in a real community, and infringing on others well being is something you have no reason to do.

Realisticly, there would be places for people who are buzzed to hang out, no reason to be on your law. (This is an unrealistic situation usually proposed by those argueing for bourgeois rights)

However, if it were true, you would be disturbing others. There would be a community meeting if you asked them to leave and they didn't. There, a course of action will be decided. (Most likely confronting these few people with the whole neigborhood will make them stop. If not they would be forced.)

[Phugebrins]

As stated above, 'antisocial behaviour' would be much less common. But...

Precisely what you can and can't do to people tearing up your garden is not something that needs to be set in stone in advance: it's for communities to decide, not us to prescribe.
However, some options might be:
- Take no action, but bring it up at the next
- Call the equivalent of a policeman
- Manhandle, but do not injure, the culprit off your garden
- Various options up to lethal force

The justification would here be that the person in question is attacking public property (as well as probably violating your privacy and utility of a garden you've earned). Personally, I'd expect no-one would support lethal force, as it suggests that their right to life is less important than your right to privacy/the community's right not to be degraded.

[rouchambeau]

Noah, you confuse private property with personal property.