if everyone owns it, no one owns it

@Grenade123 that doesn't even make any sense, if me and my wife sign a lease on a house, it's not suddenly unowned

we both own it

if 10 people own something, then none of them own it, as none of them get to decide what to do with it

? ? ?

you do not own a house, you and your wife own a house

but should you and your wife disagree on how something is done with the house, then neither of you get to do anything with it

There should be a second debate channel that allows for related links and pictures to be posted

if you have problems with collective ownership I invite you to read kropotkin, he writes extensively on how it works

I'm off to eat lunch now

wish they'd remove slow mode

@xmrsmoothx do you have a problem with mob rule?

guten Appetit

DM me if you want to argue more, I'm leaving

collective ownership is mob rule

unless your ownership comes at certain percents, but then we have a hierarchy where whoever has the most ownership mostly gets to decide what happens

no real different than we have today

mob rule means those least represented get the shaft

not very progressive

i think it's bad form to simply tell people to "go read (x)"
but Kropotkin has written some seriously good stuff on the subject
collective decisions don't have to be made by simple majority vote, either

if they are not, then you have a minority making a decision for the majority, which is what we have now

also, if you want workers to seize the means of production, then all you are doing is putting the people who own the most robots at the top of the new hierarchy structure. As they can product the most while maintain sole ownership of their property

No the idea of seizing the means of production is that they still wouldn't own shit personally

But the trick of it is that it's always dependent on having a system that is reasonably optimized without a feasible metric for optimization

```that's not really accurate```
I agree with @Beemann on the Star Trek issue. Its true that there is money (again) and personal posession.
There was just one line IIRC, where it was said that there was no money and that was Star Trek 4, where Kirk said that Money was abolished a long time ago...

Yeah I had heard about that but I never watched ST4. TNG references wages and betting, people have their own personal possessions and people own land though. The difference is that most possessions are sentimental and most wealth is used experientially

Theres an episode in TNG where they're trapped in a fictional novel and they make reference to the need to acquire currency, and also when Riker is trying to find the fat Ferengi he is told he needs currency and that they don't have any only materials for trade

TNG mentions personal Property, though IIRC not money.

its DS9 where Money is mentioned (again)

Worf mentions a betting pool in an episode in TNG

That isn't really a contradiction.

It stuck out to me because I had been told that money wasn't a thing in Star Trek

both can be true, no currency but some form of money.

or a Point System, whatever

Whenever they bartered in trade situations it was usually in Latinum or Gold

Que
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/currency

Ultimately they have a cash equivalent. I doubt an advanced society is barter-paying their military

I think the whole point they're trying to get across in Star Trek is no-one needs currency because of replicators

You can certainly make big deals on that basis, but not small ones

But they evidently have it

Trade in precious metals isnt the same thing as a currency though, since any currency is usually backed by a precious metal which does not depreceate in value