Thread: Property?

Results 1 to 12 of 12

  1. #1
    Senior Revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Aug 2001
    Posts 2,990
    Rep Power 19

    Default

    How should property be owned?

    Should we have people being allowed to own what they like but they can't abuse people?

    Should businesses and land be owned by the populous but peoples individual possesions are owned by the individuals although the people are trusted to allow others to use them if they can?

    Should everything be owned by the populous but people are given the "right" to use it (such as the situation with computer games)?

    Or should absolutely everything be owned by everyone?

    I think i'm between the second and the third way in my views.
    11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11
  2. #2
    Join Date Nov 2001
    Posts 102
    Rep Power 17

    Default

    Quote: from Moskitto on 12:29 am on Nov. 14, 2001
    How should property be owned?

    Should we have people being allowed to own what they like but they can't abuse people?

    Should businesses and land be owned by the populous but peoples individual possesions are owned by the individuals although the people are trusted to allow others to use them if they can?

    Should everything be owned by the populous but people are given the "right" to use it (such as the situation with computer games)?

    Or should absolutely everything be owned by everyone?

    I think i'm between the second and the third way in my views.
    aye yai yai, moskitto you make my brain hurt with these analyzations. that depends on many things; for one if we speak of americas then we much consider the natives of the land, no? and if we do well...gee there really isnt a logical solution; or is there?

    there are just too many people in the world to answer realistic but "yes" i believe everyone should own a small piece of land that would pass down from generation to generation but you would have to be living in a non-capitalist, ungreedy, family oriented world. and guess what? good question though. what is your thought? i dont remember you giving one. (sorry)
  3. #3
    Senior Revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Aug 2001
    Posts 2,990
    Rep Power 19

    Default

    I think I believe that Big things like factories should be the property of everyone but small things should be peoples own possesions which they are trusted to let others use if they can.
    11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11
  4. #4
    Join Date Aug 2001
    Location Toronto, Canada
    Posts 222
    Rep Power 17

    Default

    good question mosk, id have to see that if a state of philosopher kings were to rule then putting the property in the hands of the state wouldnt be bad. As they would'nt be corrupted by material things. factories will be owned by the state and all the workers will get a share of profits, each person makes up a piece of the puzzle. I think this can come about only in a society where we have philisopher kings or cultivated minds running things. peace
  5. #5
    Join Date Nov 2001
    Location Hell
    Posts 20
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Simple way of doing this.
    All capital objects are owned collectively by the state, i.e. the means of production, the means of transport etc.

    And then people can receive 'rations' on items, with the state attempting to produce items equating to the demand. Obviously, however, some items might be harder to procure, if made of rare materials etc, such things would therefore be worth more rationaing points. If you want a gold necklace, you can have less food.

    Only items like food, personal jewelry, clothes and other such should be individually owned.

    The big question i cant answer? living space. Should people live in communal spaces? or maybe in individual houses or flats? not sure really, and you wouldn't really be able to put rations on it, because a house is worth a hell of a lot of food....
    \"Behind every person is their shadow, just waiting for the chance to win control of their mind\"
  6. #6
    Senior Revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Aug 2001
    Posts 2,990
    Rep Power 19

    Default

    There's a problem with just giving everyone an equal amount of everything. There's some things people don't need.

    For example I don't need an Ice Hockey stick just like you don't need a Braca-Sport Canoe-20 C1 Paddle.
    11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11
  7. #7
    Valkyrie
    Guest

    Default

    "Each according to his need......"

    Bras and tampons for women, jock straps and hemroid meds for men. Not sure about the Ms. Kitty vibe - essential or non? (just kidding)

    Everyone needs shelter,therefore shelter should be owned with a clause that you cannot sell for profit.

    I don't know about the idea of communal living for single people. families already live communally, so thats not a problem.

    Canoes and the like should be societal property for use.

    That;s just my opinion.
  8. #8
    Join Date Feb 2003
    Location canada
    Posts 2,173
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    *looks back over his post*
    yep, i thought so, i didn't once mention that everyone shoukd get an equal amount of everything...
    Che Guevara wannabe
  9. #9
    Senior Revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Aug 2001
    Posts 2,990
    Rep Power 19

    Default

    Canoes and the like should be societal property for use.
    Yeah but the thing is the one's I use are modified towards each persons individual comforts so It would be impractical for somoene else to come along and say "It's mine" and spend about half an hour rearranging the board. But I do let people use it.
    11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11
  10. #10
    Valkyrie
    Guest

    Default

    Well, Moskitto, if I remember right, you're eligible to compete in the Olympics on a rowing team. In this case, you have a special ability, so the "each according to his need, each according to his ability" would apply to you.

    Now, I suppose someone will bring up that a "special ability or talent"is showing or rewarding elitism. So, Be it.
  11. #11
    Senior Revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Aug 2001
    Posts 2,990
    Rep Power 19

    Default

    Well the thing with rewarding talent like that is that some might argue that sport is becoming too much about equipment rather than individual ability.

    But at least under that system people would be rewarded based on talent rather than being able to get rewards just from having financial backing.

    P.S. It's Canoe + Kayak Racing (Canoe for me ) not rowing but everyone makes that mistake.
    11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11
  12. #12
    CommieBastard
    Guest

    Default

    A state-owned economy could provide sports equipment to whoever wanted it (if specialised and fitted equipment was needed), while also making available in public sports centres that which does not need special thingie majigs...

Similar Threads

  1. Property
    By propertyistheft in forum Theory
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 29th November 2006, 13:27
  2. Why I Don't Believe In Property.
    By Gradualist Fool in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 18th October 2006, 00:30
  3. Property
    By Connolly in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 25th July 2006, 02:19
  4. Property
    By anomaly in forum Learning
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 1st July 2006, 20:51
  5. Property
    By STN in forum Learning
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15th March 2006, 05:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread