It can get blurry if you look for it but generally the things you use almost every day and the place you sleep and store the items you use almost everyday day are hard to argue against.
Almost all the reform that needs to happen is on a scale where things are very obvious. Corporate property should be owned by the workers. One tech company buying an entire game studio where the same workers work should be too absurd to mean something.
After this we could discuss common ethics like what is a good reason for a person to own a personal yacht or plane? If that is a live in yacht and that is part of their life style sure. Owning 4 and a castle… that should need
More restrictions.
And someone lives in a historic castle there family has lived in for generations thats ok. But owning a portfolio of historical building they exploit economically, not so much.
There should not be a centralised authority to decide on smaller stuff that common sense cant handle. You don’t call something non personal that you don’t want anyone else to take either. The closer we build towards a fairer world the more people will have access to fill their needs the less they have a reason to become jealous of others.
I won’t pretended to have a solution on how to get this done in practice but its a direction to move in at least.
In our current economic system, there is a clear distinction between business and private property. You have to register a business with the government and you pay different taxes on your business. Also, a business generates revenue and can employ other people.
Registered business=private property
Private house that generates no income because you don’t rent it=personal property.
Maybe in your economic system, here in sweden my house is a registred business because it has 4 hectares of swamp land, my neighbours house is registred business because it has 10 hectares of woods (enskild firma, gårdsfastighet and skogsfastighet respectively). Another person in the village got an AB (aktiebolag, registred stock business) which he uses for his one person welding business.
There is a possibility to make revenue, I "just "need to cut down the vegetation and dike around everything plus preparing the clay soil so I can grow things. In that way Im like a capitalist with unrealized profits bound in my land. The ROI would be measured in decades at best but there is potential.
My neighbours land is too small to get value of a harvester but if he didnt value his time he would profit by harvesting the trees and replant, or remake the land into fields for food.
All Im saying is that there will always be problems by letting someone (either person or entity) decide what is private vs personal property. Id rather that all land in the village become communal, and being used by someone who actually work the land. The centralization inherent in communism is problematic since the local village community risk the land becoming state property with relocation as only option
Plus the problem of who decides what is personal vs private ownership.
It can get blurry if you look for it but generally the things you use almost every day and the place you sleep and store the items you use almost everyday day are hard to argue against.
Almost all the reform that needs to happen is on a scale where things are very obvious. Corporate property should be owned by the workers. One tech company buying an entire game studio where the same workers work should be too absurd to mean something.
After this we could discuss common ethics like what is a good reason for a person to own a personal yacht or plane? If that is a live in yacht and that is part of their life style sure. Owning 4 and a castle… that should need More restrictions.
And someone lives in a historic castle there family has lived in for generations thats ok. But owning a portfolio of historical building they exploit economically, not so much.
There should not be a centralised authority to decide on smaller stuff that common sense cant handle. You don’t call something non personal that you don’t want anyone else to take either. The closer we build towards a fairer world the more people will have access to fill their needs the less they have a reason to become jealous of others.
I won’t pretended to have a solution on how to get this done in practice but its a direction to move in at least.
I agree with you, some things are common sense.
I just see the issues with the power invested in the institution or persons who decides the non-obvious issues.
In our current economic system, there is a clear distinction between business and private property. You have to register a business with the government and you pay different taxes on your business. Also, a business generates revenue and can employ other people.
Registered business=private property Private house that generates no income because you don’t rent it=personal property.
Maybe in your economic system, here in sweden my house is a registred business because it has 4 hectares of swamp land, my neighbours house is registred business because it has 10 hectares of woods (enskild firma, gårdsfastighet and skogsfastighet respectively). Another person in the village got an AB (aktiebolag, registred stock business) which he uses for his one person welding business.
If you make revenue from your house, it is a business.
There is a possibility to make revenue, I "just "need to cut down the vegetation and dike around everything plus preparing the clay soil so I can grow things. In that way Im like a capitalist with unrealized profits bound in my land. The ROI would be measured in decades at best but there is potential.
My neighbours land is too small to get value of a harvester but if he didnt value his time he would profit by harvesting the trees and replant, or remake the land into fields for food.
All Im saying is that there will always be problems by letting someone (either person or entity) decide what is private vs personal property. Id rather that all land in the village become communal, and being used by someone who actually work the land. The centralization inherent in communism is problematic since the local village community risk the land becoming state property with relocation as only option