yes

It's a balancing act because democracy is about pleasing everyone, or giving off the illusion of doing so.

Who?

that is allowed

because flat hierachy doesnt work
and people need to manage their own property
and take individual responsibility

some degree of collective ownership is present in western society

if you want to enter in such an arrangement go ahead

and has been for all time

the group is retarded

go ahead do so

we DO consider other people's property to be our own to some degree

we wil see which kind of ownership works best

we already have

huh no

we want it to be

@Nerthulas
The commons require the sharing of responsibility
private property requires individual responsibility

we now collectives doesnt work
THERE ARE COLLECTIVES

our laws even reflect it

we so wish we had other peoples stuff

our laws were built by socialistic jews

They're not contradictory

why do we wanna follow them

as soon as you have a leader or an organisation
that leader basically OWNS EVERYTHING

you can have collective ownership with property right

if somebody's farm is in the way of the new rail line that 100,000 people are going to benefit from...

all you must do is make it voluntary

sorry, property isn't so absolute anymore

everyone comes together

and owns a piece

fuck all flat hierachy and all shared democratic collective property rights

what about

you buy off that farm?

what about that

if you want to live like that you dont deserve to live

or what about you build around the farm

..no one wants to talk to the group about voting
about your own home

we have a little bit of that, we give them a premium

why would a railway line have to specifically go through a farm anyway

farms HAVE leaders.. who OWN everything

thats ridiculous

to optimize its resource consumption, time to delivery, etc.