there was also fascist "third way" economic policies that somewhat remain in effect, after fascism and the rest of the "new right" of the 1920s has fallen out of favor after ww2.
Its an intresting idea, and I can say I like the idea of local ownership, and re-culturalization by removing centralization, and the constriction and conformity it breeds. I don't like the catholic element thought.
The history given is a lie, in the middle ages, the land was owned by feudal lords who worked not, and took most of the produce of the working class.(and even early burghers).
If you had property, you were gentry, and the medieval period saw people organized into strict castes, determined by birth. It worked for kings, noblemen, and it could be decent or even respectable to peasants at times where they were needed.
my own ideas involve a combination of right wing libertarianism and left wing anarchy into a free market system, that further enumerates individual rights, defines personhood as a single flesh and blood Homo Sapien, redefines the diffrence between personal, group, and common property, mandates that all righteous groups by rule be democratic, and redefines what is and is not property.
I call for the end of all stock corporations, and strict regulation, if not abolishment of financial markets. Instead workers of the companies will be the new stakeholders, with voting rights and dividends due to position in the company, and time spent in the company.
Borrowed from "Geo-Libertarianism" is the concept that absolute ownership in form of "property" only extents of man made manufactured goods. You cannot own land no more than you can own sky or water. That property is made by man via labor.
In my believes if you have a house, you can own a house(made by labor), and replacing the right to own land, is the right to occupy land, which I place equal vigor in enforcement as any libertarian would right to own any land.(and more vigor than what the US government today, seems to value personal property rights).
How much land around the house you could claim as yours, would depend upon the setting(urban vs rural), with the ground underneath unshakably yours, as well as, a common right to have a path(driveway or something), that is either yours or common property, leading to common streets.
I believe in the concept of "common", or public property, as a differential between government property, denying that while the government has the responsibility of maintaining common property, with common funds(read tax payers dollars) they lack the authority to treat it as common, and all citizens shall have equal access to use common property so long as use does not deny others use. Roads, Parks, physical power lines and utilities will be "common property". Law enforcement will have no right to remove, disturb, harass anyone on common property, except in the due purpose of duties, such as
Think of it this way. a park will be common property, but a park administration building in the park will be government property.
The internet will be common property world wide, and access will be a right. Net neutrality will be along the lines that the amount of bytes transferred per month and size of the pipe be the only thing permissible to be regulated.
"Intellectual Property", in concept will be abolished, with limited "rights" given as a non-movable transferable right given to the actual creators(people who actually did work) only.
Then I could go on about personal freedoms about how guns should be legal, free speech for all, and if there is no victim, there is no crime.
Any system of economics that relies on the initiation of force is immoral and irrational and will not work. Those who produce will see that the fruit of their time and effort will be given to those who gave up nothing and so will either stop producing or join the looters, and eventually, there will be no producers to loot from.
First off there isn't any entity that we know of that should or could be the deciding mechanism by which we distribute. Who is to say what needs what and who needs who? A computer? a person? a body of people?
Isn't this in every sense of the word just the basis for planned economies, which are doomed to die for the sole reason that every single individual human being has completely different set of needs and wants and the amount of those needs and wants and for having anything that can assume to be able to accurately predict, and provide that level distribution?
This, most egalitarian of ideals, was possible, when your community consists of about 30 or so people. In fact, it was something practiced by our nomadic ancestors, who, compared to us, lived a fairly egalitarian lifestyle. But as population increases so does the necessity for a hierarchy, and a proper way to distribute according to the hierarchy.
TheMarcherFeatured By OwnerNov 3, 2012Hobbyist Photographer
The perfect system is one where no one fares ill but anyone who works hard is rewarded. Incentive is imporatant but so is also a social net that can catch unfortunates.
In Sweden we have cheap healthcare (costs maximum 100 USD/year for docot and maximum 200 USD for medicine) It is not perfect by far, but it works for the most of the time. I donšt think there will ever be a perfect system but we have come to a reasonable one who works for most people.
I do not think socialism is a perfect system, but the government does some stuff good and some stuff should be left to the free market. But the government should be able to apply brakes or push the accelerator when needed in the market to even out the bumps in the economy that are bound to happen with bubbles/bursts.
Cooperatives can work as you are working for the good of yourself and for the good of the system. But that is also the point of my mixed economy. You are working hard for a good life, but I pay slightly more taxes than a lot of countries to have a decent social net that will protect me if I should get sick. I can also choose to get extra insurance to cover a grander life-style if I choose.
I'm having trouble understanding how, exactly, this isn't a form of socialism. It sounds an awful lot like an attempt to bring together the best of capitalism and socialism that got caught in the pitfalls of both.
Should the ownership of productive property be redistributed to as many people as possible, so as to ensure that everyone has an equally important and valuable stake in the economies of their communities?
No. This seems to operate under the false assumption that everyone would make good use of productive property, that simply having a stake in the outcome will induce everyone to participate equally, but that's simply not true. First, not everyone is equally capable, and second, not everyone works equally hard. It's furthermore close to totalitarian. You'd need a very strong centralized state to prevent property from falling into hands that already had property deemed sufficient, and you'd force people to occupations they might not choose based on what the property they've been allocated is suitable for.
What the hell am I going to do with three acres and a cow? I don't want to be a farmer.