Ormurinn wrote:If they force everyone off the land, they can't make any money on it. Even then, they'd be required to tour their holdings in order to maintain a right to them, which limits the size of their posessions.
No, they can't make as much
money off it as they can right now. Under that system, however, it'd be the result that maximized the money they make off the property. The rich would get richer slightly less quickly, but everyone else who isn't well enough off to own property of their own (aka the vast majority of people) would be made to endure forced relocation from their residency every $time_threshold. In effect, the absolute wealth of the rich would go down, but their relative wealth compared to others would go up significantly. It'd be a worse
situation for everyone that doesn't own property (unless you enjoy playing musical chairs with your possessions, work, social network, etc. every $time_threshold).
Ormurinn wrote:So you can't see how the employees of a factory owning a factory, still have the capability to manufacture goods? Distributing infrastructure amongst people doesn't necessarily lead to it stopping working. The existence of huge megacorporations would be an impossibility under this system, but confederations of suppliers and manufacturers could still exist, and do the same job, except their holdings would be distributed amongst the communities they were a part of. Rather than a massive company owning all the factories, the workers in the factories own them (because of their right to own what they themselves occupy and use) and distribute their goods through a network.
That only covers existing factories. How do you create a new one? You'll need to get funds, and more than the workers-to-be themselves could provide. How do you apportion the proceeds from the factories that do exist? Does everyone get an equal share, does it vary based on your job -- who decides that? How is that different from shares of ownership, which you yourself said would not work in your system? What happens when you have something too complicated to have the management of such working with a small group? Many goods that are natural monopolies would fall under this realm -- you can't really have a modern processor fall under this system, as it requires the tight cooperation between various groups of people at different locations. If you split them up, they'll have too much divergence and you could easily reach a point where nothing every works. Very few modern industries would work under your system -- we'd be back to the era of tradesmen and guilds.
Ormurinn wrote:As for power and internet access, your scenario involving cutting off power to someone seems... unrealistic. You'd have to be pretty hated for that to work. Even assuming it did, is giving the state the right to confiscate property on a whim a lesser evil than sopme people not getting internet access?
You've conveniently left out all the other things that people would be being denied: electricity, water, gas (for heating), the right to leave their own home
, telephone, the local septic system, all on top of the internet. When you actually take into account all of those things, yes, it is most definitely worse than state granted rights of confiscation. Which isn't even fully what we're dealing with either: in the US it's 100% required for there to be compensation or due process of law for property to be taken, and this appears
to not be all that different in the UK. I would consider such to be a far, far, far lesser evil to "some people don't like you, now you get to starve to death and dehydrate and go without power and live in your own filth and freeze to death and can't communicate with the outside world and there's nothing you can do about it!". I would consider the right to not be arbitrarily forced to die, alone and in misery, through no actions of your own, to be rather essential for a state to be a good one.
Ormurinn wrote:I fail to see why a railway couldn't work - It'd be owned by the staff and people who lived near to the railway. I've already explained how a factory could work.
The railway needs to go across hundreds of miles to be economically viable -- that would be hundreds of different people's properties. Even if you can get all of those people to consent to it, once one of them no longer owns that property anymore (dies, leaves, etc.), then the next person could just say "no, you can't have a railway here" and force the whole thing to need to be redone. The threat of that would be ever present; it would make railways completely untenable. There would be similar (though less drastic) problems for boats and airplanes -- you need access to airports and docks at both ends of the journey, yet you'd have no way to ensure you would be permitted to use the port at the other end of your journey. Isn't freedom to relocate a very essential part of any free state -- where if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else that you like more? It would almost certainly be near-impossible under your system, let alone the economic and global impact this would have.
Im genuinely bemused at a lot of your arguments - perhaps its because I have presented mine incorrectly. this is a pretty good resource for articles that approximate my viewpoint http://c4ss.org/
I think i cited something earlier in the thread. Heres an FAQ http://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq
. TBH, I'm aware that my position on personal vs. private property would need some wrangling to get to work - if it could at all. Do you have a more workable alternative to eliminate parasitic rent-seeking?
That FAQ seems to miss, completely and utterly, that while there are powers we grant to the state, that can result in some abuses, the modern and just state (aka not North Korea-esque places) uses those powers to protect us from far, far worse abuses. Earlier, Zamfir used the example of pollution. When you own a factory, it outputs pollutants into the air that affect everybody for quite a large distance. Without the a governing state, you lose any power to influence them, to prevent them from polluting the air you breath. Without a governing state, you lose the power to prevent them from shoving all their waste into your (and other people's) water system. Without a governing state, you lose the ability to protect yourself against collusion of market players to extort you. Without a governing state, you have no means other than your own, to protect yourself from brigands and marauders. Without a governing state, you have nothing to protect you from the results of Murphy's Law that are outside your control, such as natural disasters.
Does it matter if I have a better solution for eliminating rent-seekers? We could end murder through something akin to nerve stapling, but that would not be a better solution because of the other harms done. Your system might (which I do not think is guaranteed either) end rent-seeking, but it would do so in a way that strengthens the people you intend to weaken, and weakens the people you intend to strengthen. If you want to weaken the ability of a few powerful people to amass more power to influence the lives of those around them, you shouldn't give them a playground where no one is powerful enough to hold them back! You could re-work election laws (first past the post systems are good at shoving out less traditional candidates), rework taxation laws to be more progressive, enshrine more freedoms and rights or limitations on the state in the constitutions or charters of your governing body. You could increase the estate tax to prevent wealth from accumulating in families over generations, without having done anything other than been born to the right parents to earn it. There is a lot you could do, and much of it would have far less cataclysmic effects on people, with the actual potential to make things better in net, instead of worse in net.