Now that we’ve successfully increased the factionalism of the board by splitting from the tankies, the logical next step is to start arguing with ourselves. Possible topics include:

  • Should personal property, as opposed to private property, rights continue to be respected? Is there any meaningful distinction between the two categories?
  • Would volunteerism be enough to meet everyone’s needs, or is it okay to compel work sometimes?
  • Are anprims even real?

Or another better topic idk I’m just a lib who loves internet fights

  • Amorphous [any]
    1·
    4 years ago

    1. Personal property is stuff you actually use, as far as I'm concerned. No reason to touch it.

    2. I don't think anyone would need to be compelled to work. There will always be some people unwilling or unable to contribute, but those people are in such a small minority that it almost certainly won't be a problem. We wouldn't have got this far as a species if we weren't compelled to progress by our own feelings, regardless of external pressures.

    3. doubt it

    • krothotkin [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      A use-based system of property would be interesting. Maybe you've already heard of them, but there's some common law legal doctrines that tend to go in that direction. Adverse possession can be seen as serving a policy that unused property should be subject to redistribution, while wastage (though standing is usually limited to persons with present or future property interests in the given property) comes at the issue from the other end by punishing stupid or damaging use of property. Both doctrines are products of capitalist systems and reinforce capitalist incentives, but I wonder if they could be adopted into a more equitable body of personal property law, e.g. by declaring wastage a public nuisance and expanding possible plaintiffs to members of the public.