(July 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: To be fair Genk, priority use is not ownership and would eliminate every problem you posed. It'd be a practical nightmare..granted....lol. Personally, I like owning things, so I;d just gravitate towards a community that had a concept of ownership even if there were no overarching legal basis for such. In such a community, the question "do we own" is easy to answer. Yes, "we" own....even if you do not.
I don't think priority use is the answer - especially where deferred usage is concerned.
Suppose I buy a piece of fallow agricultural land and choose to develop it. However, since it is not very fertile right now and I happen to have other sources of income, I choose not to cultivate it but simply spend years enriching it. I'm investing my time and effort for the future when I'm old. However, within priority use, I either use the land now or let someone else use it - thereby devaluing my investment.
(July 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'd also add that what void appears to be talking about would be a sort of ownership itself. Communal, perhaps, but ownership nevertheless (what happens when two different groups of people both claim simultaneous requirement of said object?). Which again, makes the question "do we own" a fairly amusing one, even if only mechanically so.
I do recognize communal ownership to be a valid solution in many cases - especially where things built and maintained by the government are concerned. For example, I'd assume that all natural resources (except for human resources) in a country belong to the government and thus are public property unless a private entity buys it from them. However, I wouldn't consider the products of an individual's labor to automatically be communal property without him being paid for it.