Ownership and the means of production

  1. honestrosewater

    honestrosewater 2,329
    Gold Member

    By prohibiting slavery, humans have accepted the concept that some things should not be owned. Has this limitation on ownership ever been applied to the means of production in a society? I mean complete prohibition of ownership, not shared ownership or ownership by some governing body, but the means of production being totally unownable. Why wouldn't it work?

    I was just thinking of starting a little garden for anyone to use, where people can keep whatever they grow, but I don't want anyone to own anything in it (the tools, the original plants, etc.).
     
  2. jcsd
  3. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Perhaps since the idea doesn't exist in real life, you could explain how it would work instead of asking for it to be explained why it wouldn't? The very idea just doesn't make logical sense to me. It sounds almost like gibberish to me. One obvoius question: In this garden, where do the tools and plants come from?
     
  4. DaleSpam

    Staff: Mentor

    What you are proposing *is* slavery. The prohibition of slavery is essentially the idea that a man has a right to the products of his own labor. If the means of production cannot be owned, then a man has no right to the products of his own labor. That is slavery, you have only replaced "the master" with "the masses".
     
  5. A communal garden created with individual negotiation as apposed to government direction and funded with donations created by savings in grocery expenses.

    Go for it, I'd like to here how this garden grows.
     
  6. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    As Jase indicted it sounds to me like one is talking about a community garden. Usually one would own the land and then invite folks to put in some effort to cultivate the land, plant, tend, then harvest produce/crops. There are several such groups in my area. We give away extra produce we grow and some friends will give us something they've grown.
     
  7. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't like what you guys are growing, so I'm going to dig it all up and plant pot. Who'se going to stop me?
     
  8. Every garden has pests mate, they're dealt with as they arise.

    In any case, your pot would not be unappreciated in any communal garden I've come across.

    Besides, your best off hiding it amongst the tomatoes, not in place of.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2008
  9. mheslep

    mheslep 3,463
    Gold Member

    Who are you to determine who's a pest and who's not? Sounds like you are suggesting you own the garden. :wink:
     
  10. mheslep

    mheslep 3,463
    Gold Member

    Nobody. And, since the pot is not owned by anybody, I'm moving in an taking it all after you put in the trouble to grow it. Thanks, appreciate it. :wink:
     
  11. You aren't suggesting it is difficult to identify a pest in a garden. Are you?:confused:
     
  12. I will stop you. Not because I own it but because you do not. You assume you will be able to own it. And have fooled yourself into believing you can take it.
     
  13. DaleSpam

    Staff: Mentor

    So getting rid of ownership quickly leads to war with the winner taking ownership.
     
  14. mheslep

    mheslep 3,463
    Gold Member

    Exactly.
     
  15. An ideal was defended at no point was ownership claimed.
     
  16. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Fighting over what can and can't be done in the garden is a claim to ownership.
     
  17. It was obvious where the gardens detractors were heading.

    So the USA has claimed Iraq or the oil?
     
  18. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are saying that since the motives are obvious, it doesn't have anything to do with ownership. As I said, it isn't so much the deciding but the fighting that is the claim to ownership.
    We most certainly had ownership of Iraq and the oil. We are currently in the process of giving it back to the Iraqi people.

    As others said, if I have the bigger gun, you can do nothing to stymie my claim to ownership of the garden.
     
  19. mheslep

    mheslep 3,463
    Gold Member

    Hey! Ive found a pest!
     
  20. Let's make this garden the last garden. It’s easier to imagine anyone actually fighting another to own it. That there is a person or people who take advantage of the gardens produce as they do with other aspects of their environment, whether they are aware of it at all or have some notion of it they may or may not claim ownership. And there are others who would claim ownership of the garden through use of force. The claim may succeed. Unless the claim has the bigger gun the garden remains unowned. The fact I fight for something does not mean I own it.
    I have fought for many reasons, sometimes just for fun.
     
  21. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    I'd have to say no. To some extent there is a responsible person or group. In urban areas where people clean up vacant lots and have a communal garden, the city usually is the owner.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_garden

    Back in the 60's "hippies" would move to "communes" where everything was supposedly shared. I knew a couple of people that did this, realised it didn't work in reality and moved out. It's just human nature for people to fall into leaders and followers. The leaders have more and get their way, the followers get screwed, although many are too meek to ever say anything or stand up for themselves.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?