(July 10, 2013 at 3:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I didn't miss any point it's a non issue. If we're going with priority use over ownership just how did you "buy" anything to begin with? If we apply the workings of an ownership model to the backdrop of a priority use model it shouldn't be surprising to see that the two don't match.
Well, if the priority use model is to be applied some time in the future, a change would have to be made - where an issue like this would come up. Nevertheless, the key question here is, within the context of priority use, how would a priority user defer usage of the object while reasonably ensuring he will get the value in future?
(July 10, 2013 at 3:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Same way we already do. By stressing the benefits to ones own personal interests. Use of equipment that you could not afford outright - or that you only use every so often and is thus not economically feasible. Similar situation with property rights (which we already do, sometimes one entity owns the mineral rights another the water rights - they're communally sharing the land at an effectively lower cost due to distributing their various claims to specific property rights).
Oh, that kind of preference. Then the opposite could be true just as easily. In the cases where private ownership is more beneficial than community ownership, you would be stressing the preference former over the latter.
