IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 940
hi Greoric and good morning,
a few posts ago, you said,
i still don't understand why you don't think communal gardens aren't being "tangibily utilized communally".
that would seem to be wrong to me, Greoric. the community working the plots of land have made mutually agreed upon laws for the use of the land by the community - is this sort of thing verboten for libertarians?
what i was asking is this; are there cases (National Parks, community gardens, the Saranac Community Store) where a reasonable libertarian might concede that communal ownership can be a beneficial phenomenon?
- IGIT
Absolutely. There might be more property out there that's owned by groups of people than property owned exclusively by individuals, but co-ownership of a business is not communally owned. Return on investment is distinct and defined as are areas of responsibility and operation for its owner. That's not communal property, and neither is that community garden you mentioned.
a few posts ago, you said,
Property isn't communal dude, because it can't be tangibly utilized communally. Someone, or no one is going to be occupying and using property at any given time. It can never be owned or even decided over by everybody, because as soon as its used some people have more of a say than others.
i still don't understand why you don't think communal gardens aren't being "tangibily utilized communally".
Observe it next time you cross by. There's still property rights involved, however implicit they may be. If it were communal, it should be socially permissible for you to go in and rip up whatever plant is currenlty growing in the spot you'd like to tend to, right?
that would seem to be wrong to me, Greoric. the community working the plots of land have made mutually agreed upon laws for the use of the land by the community - is this sort of thing verboten for libertarians?
Of course even if it was permissible, you're still demonstrating that you're taking exclusive action on some secluded peace of dirt in the garden. The community isn't. You're still occupying that piece of dirt for however long you're there to the exclusion of everyone else, and therefore denying the concept that its communally owned to begin with.
Is there any room for peace with in the libertarian philosophy? My man. Peace is its central message. In fact, peace is the antithesis of what you're advocating. I think you're forgetting mate, that by supporting the state you're the one supporting violence. It's just hidden beneath a thin veneer of officialdom and illusory legitimacy.
The just outcome is to stop supporting that violence. That's it. The idea that we need to compel people under threat of arrest to fund services that we all want already is absurd. Frankly it should be immediately absurd to everyone including yourself if there wasn't the existing level of normalcy bias in society now.
what i was asking is this; are there cases (National Parks, community gardens, the Saranac Community Store) where a reasonable libertarian might concede that communal ownership can be a beneficial phenomenon?
- IGIT
Last edited: