Ramana Kumar wrote: > what happens when someone wants to > eat all the fruit on the tree he co-owns?
The allocation is not arbitrary, it is clearly determined by the amount of co-ownership each co-owner has - combined with the question as to whether he has 'paid' his portion of the recurring costs. In the end, after Vertical Integration is complete, the only costs will be labor. The other co-owners will not allow this because he would be stealing from them. For example: Imagine 3 people co-own a tree. Co-owner #1 has bought and pays the recurring costs for 20% of the tree. Co-owner #2 has bought and pays the recurring costs for 30% of the tree. Co-owner #1 has bought and pays the recurring costs for 50% of the tree. Each co-owner is the individual owner of his % of the product according to the amount he has co-ownership in the Means of Production and if he pays his portion of the recurring costs. So #1 receives 20% of the fruit, #2 receives 30%, and #3 gets 50%. > How is your answer better than the method > where individuals buy and sell the fruit > (perhaps where picking from the tree entails > buying as an individual from the group of > which one is a member) and how is it worse? I have already given two reasons: 1.) Since there is no purchase, the Price the consumer pays is exactly the Costs he paid. 2.) Since there is no purchase, there is no chance for external governments to tax or harass you for selling things they think you should not be selling. Another reason is: 3.) Since you own your portion *already*, even before it is produced (assuming you 'pay' your portion of the recurring Costs), that co-ownership becomes a real insurance for that particular Product. There are other reasons that are more difficult to explain, but are very powerful. For example, Imagine you co-own a Dentist office with 1,000 other people that will likely need dental services in the future. Now, if you and the other patients agree to commit some of your future labor in return for a Dentist agreeing to service your teeth in the future, then you will have *real* dental insurance. One of the subtle advantages to this approach is how it changes the Dentist's outlook on the health of that group's teeth. Since he will receive the benefits of those patients working on his behalf in the orchards and the cafes and the dairies and the factories, etc. in return for simply maintaining their teeth, he wants their teeth to always be perfectly healthy so he can do the minimum work possible. This is in stark contrast to the usual Dentist who (secretly) wants you to have problems with your teeth so he has a reason to work on them - for it is only when you suffer that he is paid. I wish I could write that more clearly. Let me know if you understand or not. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss