Collective Ownership

[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

[Samildanach]

Collective ownership implies everyone owns it as far as I am concerned. when it comes down to who gets to use the item if a few people want to at the same time.... then I guess it comes down to who has the bigger gun and the faster trigger finger at which point when the other owners are dead it becomes a non-collective ownership item.

[tman_ndsu08]

In the ideal pure collective ownership world, there would be no private property.

Everyone would simply use the nearest whatever it is that they need to us.

For example, if I needed to use a car to get somewhere, then that car over there is as good as any other, right?

There would be no locks on anything, obviously. You'd simply use the nearest one and when you were done with it, someone else would come along as use it.


You can see how this would only work in a perfectly standardized world.

In our current world there is such a thing as a "better" car, etc.

[PatrickHenry]

There IS a commons. Who owns the atmosphere? The waters of the ocean? The space outside the earth's atmosphere?

On the other hand, what incentive is there to create objects that will be used by others without benefit to the creator? Even the internet was created for users who have juice...

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Samildanach Collective ownership implies everyone owns it as far as I am concerned. when it comes down to who gets to use the item if a few people want to at the same time.... then I guess it comes down to who has the bigger gun and the faster trigger finger at which point when the other owners are dead it becomes a non-collective ownership item.

Is this not the same situation that would happen if no one owned the item in question?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 In the ideal pure collective ownership world, there would be no private property. Everyone would simply use the nearest whatever it is that they need to us. For example, if I needed to use a car to get somewhere, then that car over there is as good as any other, right? There would be no locks on anything, obviously. You'd simply use the nearest one and when you were done with it, someone else would come along as use it. You can see how this would only work in a perfectly standardized world. In our current world there is such a thing as a "better" car, etc.

I think you forgot something -- that for the above to work, economic scarcity must not exist. Otherwise, well said.

Quote by: PatrickHenry There IS a commons. Who owns the atmosphere? The waters of the ocean? The space outside the earth's atmosphere?

The atmosphere has not been perceived to be an economically scarce good thus far. Nor have the waters of the ocean or the space outside the atmosphere. Thus, I would take your interrogative argument to mean that the only time a "commons" can exist is when economic scarcity does not.

Quote by: PatrickHenry On the other hand, what incentive is there to create objects that will be used by others without benefit to the creator? Even the internet was created for users who have juice...

None, that I know of. That's the problem with socialism, communism, etc. in my opinion: it's nothing more than an attempt to get other people to do what they don't want to do. It's an implementation of pride (the cardinal sin) on a large scale -- "What I want is more important than what you want".

- Rob

[SteveA]

Maybe the idea of "sharing" is the foundation of the idea of collective ownership.

There can be benefits for people to share resources, or pool their efforts, resources and time etc. but of course, as usual, when it becomes a coercive/enforced mode of action then problems set in. When you really think about it, there are few resources that are truly collectively owned to any extreme. There are almost always, oftentimes unspoken, limits on the manner in which shared resources are allowed to be used.

Like Patrick pointed out, there are inevitable aspects of common ownership that exist as one persons actions aren't entirely isolated from affecting other people, so what one person puts into the air, affects air for others etc. but this isn't an ideal, IMO, it's simply the way the universe works that needs to be considered. If someone could simply pollute their own air without affecting the quality of air for others, then air pollution would be much less of an issue.

If you go back to basics, the ideas of property exist to protect investments of energy and resources by individuals. It's the abuse of the ideas of private property, and extending them to areas that shouldn't be privately owned (land barons were created by allowing government to simply redefine land ownership using boxes on a map) that's sparked ideas of collective ownership, but they both have the same problem of ignoring inherent individual property rights in favor of some socially coerced redistribution. Most the people in my neighborhood seem to understand just fine where their property lines end and where others begin, except for possibly thieves and property tax collectors.

[Logjam]

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.

[Logjam]

Quote by: SteveA Maybe the idea of "sharing" is the foundation of the idea of collective ownership.

We "share" in our prosperity. We own individually.

People who want to "share" want to get ownership of other people's property and not have to work for it. It's sorta like stealing. When communist governments collectivize they "steal" the means of production from those who used to own it. Since they don't have the skills to operate the item stolen it breaks down and ceases to function. Everyone suffers.

[Matt W]

Right. Like those co-operative factories in Argentina that are happily making a profit after their owners went bust and ran away....quite. :rolleyes:

[SteveA]

Quote by: Logjam We "share" in our prosperity. We own individually. People who want to "share" want to get ownership of other people's property and not have to work for it. It's sorta like stealing. When communist governments collectivize they "steal" the means of production from those who used to own it. Since they don't have the skills to operate the item stolen it breaks down and ceases to function. Everyone suffers.

Yes, and what's ironic is that so many of the people who champion this complain about corporate power influencing government policies, yet communism is just taking this to the extreme and effectively turning the entire country into a single giant corporation ... and you don't even have an option to quit working for it.

[Tony Clifton]

When I first read the words "collective ownership" the first thing that popped into my head was a co-op. I can recall my aunt & uncle belonging to a co-op when I was a kid. From this perspective I don't see it as inactive ownership - I see it as your ownership also comes with responsibilities for each so called owner to participate in maintaining what ever it is that is owned. Be it a business - property - etc. Ultimately those who particpate more will believe they have more rights to the benefits from the ownership thus beginning a power struggle & probably collapse of the original idea.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SteveA Yes, and what's ironic is that so many of the people who champion this complain about corporate power influencing government policies, yet communism is just taking this to the extreme and effectively turning the entire country into a single giant corporation ... and you don't even have an option to quit working for it.

Sure you do, but only if you choose to become part of the Black Market that government prohibition created, and actually try to utilize true capitalist ideology in a true free market enterprise, thus making yourself a "criminal" in the eyes of law enforcement.


A rather perverse twist in grand scheme of things I'd say.


The irony, of course, is that the only people who seem understand this are the two sides at war in this battle. The Black Marketeer undestands it because he participates in the marketplace, and law enforcement understands, and is the motivating force trying to bring about it's demise. ( Gotta get regular civilians out of the market so the CIA can increase their Black Ops budget, right? )


As far as the collective ownership issue...


When talking about goverment collectives, ( the non-corporate owned type ) I believe the collective applies to everybody. ( At least ideally. )


I think collective ownership can also apply to groups smaller than "everybody", corporations being the perfect example. The "collective", in this example is limited to the people who own the stocks in the corporation. While others may profit from the corporations existance by providing services to it, only the stockholders profit directly from the overall value of the stocks, thus indicating the size of the collective.


In other words, there need to be at least two definitions.

[kubedawg]

collective ownership is like communism without the dictator(everyones the dictator) so it will never work. it will be tried time and time again, but will always fail because human beings are selfish, and we should be.

Why should you be more important than me?

You want hate, I want love, I guess we will have to go our seperate ways and not interact at all or defeat one of the two.

There are two sides to everything, every story. For every truth, there is a lie, for every man, there is a woman, for every idea, there is a better idea.

And unfortunately, this idea will never be the better idea.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Autolykos 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.

The Tragedy of the Commons refers to collective use. If every shareholder of a company had a right to come in and use the xerox machines, etc, things would understandably get a little crazy.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The Tragedy of the Commons refers to collective use. If every shareholder of a company had a right to come in and use the xerox machines, etc, things would understandably get a little crazy.

Thanks, Morgan. You're right, there is a difference between ownership and use. Do you think that renders the point moot?

By the way, nice pic! :)

- Rob

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Autolykos Thanks, Morgan. You're right, there is a difference between ownership and use. Do you think that renders the point moot?

What was the point, again?

Quote by: Autolykos By the way, nice pic! :)

Thanks! But does it look like Deckard is shooting himself?

[tman_ndsu08]

I thought that was Tom Cruise all this time.

[twoanickel]

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

Joint ownership of a company by shareholders deserves much better than to be termed collectivism, doesn't it? Shareholders invest in companies of their own choice to the extent that they themselves wish to be involved. They invest their own funds, not the funds of others, and they partake in the companies losses or prosperity strictly according to the extent of the personal investment they have made in the company.

Collectivism, as the term is usually used, has to do with the supposed benevolent (ha, ha)
government control of the means of production and the government's imagined sujperior wisdom in assigning to people the role they will play in the government enterprise, then alloting to the members of society (their slaves) the benefits they merit.

The first thing tyrants do in seeking to increase their grasp on power is to pervert the nation's language, altering the meaning of words to make thier dictatorial aims more palatable to their gullible slaves. Americans are now being victimizedin by the initial phases of that process.

Stock ownership is an indicator of freedom. Collectivism, as the word properly used signifies, is slavery: the loss of ownership rights and the individual freedom of people to be personally responsible for themselves and enjoy the fruits of their own labor. Beware of those who try to deceive us by promoting collectivism as benevolence toward all. It is really communism. Today there are many people inside the beltway who are diligently working to foist their socialistic (communistic) ideas upon us. Their aim is not benevolence, but tyranny. They are known as Neocons, but in truth they are Machiavellians. If anyone thinks that is commendable, they should read "The Prince" by Niccoli Machiavelli. It is a book detailing the manner by which princes can control the population of their country to secure theri power over them. It is absolute tryranny. The Neocons are proud of being Machiavellians. These are the people with whom W. Bush has surrounded himself. America...will you EVER wakeup??

[Zhavric]

Hoss, you REALLY need to start paying attention.

Quote by: PatrickHenry There IS a commons. Who owns the atmosphere?

The atmosphere is devided up into sections above specific countries known as airspaces. It won't be long until corporations own part of it.

The waters of the ocean?

Ever heard of fishing lanes? International waters? There are lot of areas of the ocean that belong to specific individuals. Most of them are along coastlines, specific organisms within the ocean, or areas around ships.

The space outside the earth's atmosphere?

The stuff that we make that goes up there is all owned by corporations or governments and it's only a matter of time before corporations begin attempting to claim / copyright areas or ideas relating to space.


You know the song Happy Birthday? Yup. Copyrighted. Want to make a movie where characters sing Happy Birthday? You better cough of $10K. That's the going price right now.