Quote:
|
Quote by: Autolykos There have been several threads lately that have brought up the idea of collective ownership. Rather than clog up those threads with rather off-topic posts, I decided to start a new thread. The purpose of this thread is to hopefully reach a commonly-accepted definition of "collective ownership" and any logical conclusions that definition leads to.
With that said, I'd like to start off by saying that, when I hear the term used by its proponents, I'm not entirely sure what they mean. To me, saying that something is owned "collectively" means that everyone owns it. Yet this seems tantamount to saying that no one owns it. From there, we get into the "tragedy of the commons" concept. However, this cannot be completely accurate, for most businesses could be said to have collective ownership on the part of their shareholders. Then again, a corporation is a legally-recognized individual. Hopefully others can see the dilemma I have right now. In any case, I'd like to hear your thoughts about collective ownership and what it entails.
- Rob |
I think that the debate whether or not collective ownership is ownership by all or ownership by none is a moot question. The reason being is that the results of either is identical. Both systems lead to a lack of pride of ownership, which leads to a dirth of responsibility to the repair and maintain the collectively owned item. This leads to waste because the item wears out earlier than a maintained piece of gear.
For instance, an individuial owns a car. That owner will tend keep it in top notch condition. Give a car to a group and they'll let it go all to hell. Why should an individual take care of a car that is driving by others, who don't give a damn about the cars care?
Private ownership and the pride of ownership that it engenders is much for efficient that is collective ownership. Note, for instance, how much better care homeowners give to their homes than do renters.