Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

No-ownership system?

Lukas8
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:39:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Would it be possible that no-ownership companies, industries.... could exist and work?
Its a quite strange idea I've heard, but I wonder.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:39:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:39:22 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
Would it be possible that no-ownership companies, industries.... could exist and work?
Its a quite strange idea I've heard, but I wonder.

Who supplies capital to and bears the risk of such a company?

I'm not criticising the theory or anything, just asking because I've never heard of them.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 7:30:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:39:22 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
Would it be possible that no-ownership companies, industries.... could exist and work?
Its a quite strange idea I've heard, but I wonder.

What exactly do you mean by 'no-ownership'?
DiogenestheDog
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 5:00:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:39:22 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
Would it be possible that no-ownership companies, industries.... could exist and work?
Its a quite strange idea I've heard, but I wonder.

Even if it were somehow possible... There would still be managing executives, there must be someone making the decisions.

In a sense they would have no one to answer to, and would in many ways become the defacto owners of the organization in my opinion.
NPd
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 5:56:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What you're looking for, I think, is "possession." Unlike ownership, possession is not about abstract rights or entitlements. It's just use and occupancy. Either you use and occupy something, or you don't. It is use and occupancy that control is based on. There are two types of possession. There is personal possession and collective possession. Personal possessions are the resources designed to be used or occupied by a single person. For example, a cell phone. The user is the one who has single control over the resource, since the user is the one that is using it. A collective possession is a possession that is designed to be used and occupied by a collective of individuals. For example, a cellphone factory. The entire collective would have collective, democratic, control over this factory. If you want to know how this type of economy would look like, you could just simply look at tribalism, but you should also probably look up Pierre Proudhon and his ideology/system known as mutualism.

Here's an article I found that might be useful.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com...
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 6:18:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:39:22 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
Would it be possible that no-ownership companies, industries.... could exist and work?
Its a quite strange idea I've heard, but I wonder.

I have no idea how this would work or even what it means.

Like, do I "own" an apple I take with me to work for lunch? Only one person can eat the apple for lunch and I physically control it and plan on eating it. In what sense do I not own the apple?

Many many societal groups have tried to build societies without personal property or private commerce, they all fail. To trade is to be human. Maoist China tried collective farming, but farmers learned they could only survive by taking personal responsibility for their crops. North Korea tried to abolish private enterprise, but black markets sprung up and the officials who were supposed to be preventing black markets learned it was easier to take their cut of the market.

Resource scarcity is inherent to the nature of physical goods. There will always be physical goods that only some people have and other people want. This will ALWAYS lead to trade and private enterprise.

This is an economic reality, it doesn't say anything about how resources ought to be distributed- only that individuals necessarily exercise exclusive control of physical resources and individuals will always purse private redistribution of those resources through trade.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 2:52:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:39:22 AM, Lukas8 wrote:
Would it be possible that no-ownership companies, industries.... could exist and work?
Its a quite strange idea I've heard, but I wonder.

Someone has to have ownership for it to be a company.
You can call me Mark if you like.