I get the idea: if no one exclusively owns anything, then no one needs to hoard anything, and everyone gets what they need.
Unfortunately, we do not yet live in a post-scarcity society. There needs to be a way to both ensure that limited resources are distributed appropriately (by whatever metric) AND to ensure that someone doesn’t take more even when they are not acting in their own best interest.
To continue the apples analogy, it’s all fine and well to say that no one owns the apples so anyone can eat one whenever they want. In theory, no one would eat more than they can, so there would be enough to go around. But how do you handle someone who decides they want to control people by controlling the apples? If they take all the apples, then people will have to go to him if they want an apple, and they will have to pay some price for it (and I don’t mean cash). What is the mechanism to ensure that doesn’t happen? Or, what is the mechanism to prevent someone from burning down all the apple trees because they don’t like apples or because they want someone else to not have apples?
The idea that no one owns anything does not stop someone with an irrational mindset or with a mindset to force their will on others.
the idea is that everyone knows the idea that nobody owns anything, so they’ll boycott that person with zir rotting fruit and stop delivering their own stuff to zim so this person with the irrational mindset will have to confront that ze’s ostracized. (of course, ze could still steal stuff from them if ze wishes, but ze no longer have the social feelings of receiving a gift.) if there are no apples anywhere else they’re supposed to revolt and take the apples by force because of how used they are to the status quo, and if that person wants ze can start a hermit life somewhere else and ask for people to join zir quest about rotting fruit
I get the idea: if no one exclusively owns anything, then no one needs to hoard anything, and everyone gets what they need.
Unfortunately, we do not yet live in a post-scarcity society. There needs to be a way to both ensure that limited resources are distributed appropriately (by whatever metric) AND to ensure that someone doesn’t take more even when they are not acting in their own best interest.
To continue the apples analogy, it’s all fine and well to say that no one owns the apples so anyone can eat one whenever they want. In theory, no one would eat more than they can, so there would be enough to go around. But how do you handle someone who decides they want to control people by controlling the apples? If they take all the apples, then people will have to go to him if they want an apple, and they will have to pay some price for it (and I don’t mean cash). What is the mechanism to ensure that doesn’t happen? Or, what is the mechanism to prevent someone from burning down all the apple trees because they don’t like apples or because they want someone else to not have apples?
The idea that no one owns anything does not stop someone with an irrational mindset or with a mindset to force their will on others.
the idea is that everyone knows the idea that nobody owns anything, so they’ll boycott that person with zir rotting fruit and stop delivering their own stuff to zim so this person with the irrational mindset will have to confront that ze’s ostracized. (of course, ze could still steal stuff from them if ze wishes, but ze no longer have the social feelings of receiving a gift.) if there are no apples anywhere else they’re supposed to revolt and take the apples by force because of how used they are to the status quo, and if that person wants ze can start a hermit life somewhere else and ask for people to join zir quest about rotting fruit