(July 10, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If you're working the tilth and fertility it's not actually "out of use" - it's just not producing crops. I'd say you have priority use and you're using it. Granted, it's not as cut and dry as our current system of ownership and that;s why I prefer something more like what we have - but the framework for solving such a dispute is there.
I think you missed the point. Let me clarify it by another example. I buy a portion of mining land and develop only one section of it - leaving the rest completely unused and undisturbed - with the sole intention of using it in the future when the current mine runs dry. What would be the position of priority use in that case?
(July 10, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Communal ownership is also a great stopgap between private and redundant ownership of the means of production (say, combines for every farmer) and the private sector offering a service that amounts to the same practical effect (custom combine). Keeping private rights of ownership as a strong foundation, we still have the option of communal ownership through contracts (and stressing a culture of preferring communal ownership contracts on top of private ownership wherever applicable seems to be wise). I like having both options, personally, which is why I like the system that allows for both.
Not much objection here. But how would you create a culture of preference for communal ownership?
The problem with communal ownership usually is that the responsibility of proper usage falls to everyone - which means, it effectively falls to no one. Which is not to say that it couldn't work, but that it would often fail unless a majority within the community chooses to be responsible.
