3 ms·
I'd say that it would be quite against what most would individuals would want. And if ownership/possession is indeed a natural concept that we as a species have
by zo1 12y ago
I'd say that it would be quite against what most would individuals would want. And if ownership/possession is indeed a natural concept that we as a species have, then you'd probably have to resort to some sort of pervasive government clamp down on instances of it occurring. And that would hardly be a utopia that most proponents of such a concept would make it out to be.
Whether it hold us back in general is not something we could easily answer. You could look at the communist (or any communal ownership concept for that matter) communes and mini-experiments that have been attempted in isolation over the years. As far as I know, they were all failures.
And these communal-ownership ideas can only operate and possibly chug along if they were to operate in complete isolation. Otherwise, free trade (as a black-market if it were banned) would quickly ruin the entire thing. You could argue that free-trade isn't even possible under a system of communal ownership, as there is no private property to trade with.
Back to your initial point about no possessions requiring no jobs. I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing there.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago"I'd say that it would be quite against what most would individuals would want. And if ownership/possession is indeed a natural concept that we as a species have" Do you really want ownership, or do you really want access? For example, if you could hire a car at no cost and at no inconvenience, what benefits would you gain from owning it?