What's wrong with join ownership?

[John_James]

@FlyingAxe

I was giving a humorous explanation of why they’d disagree. Sorry you didn’t get the joke.

Oh. You’re saying an anarchist wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul because an anarchist wouldn’t vote. Lot of people around here would disagree.

Once they dissolve the full ownership, they each get a half of what they owned.

What? When did full ownership get “dissolved”? Why the hell would you do that? When was the last time you “dissolved” your full ownership of something?

But I already agreed that you can say that they own 50% of each molecule of the car.

Why not 50% of each atom?

Practically, it makes no difference and raises the same questions.

I don’t see how.

(E.g., if three people own a car, can two people compel the third person to do something with it? Does the third person always have a power of veto?)

Depends on the nature of their joint agreement…and what exactly the two people did with the car. One of the main issues is whether the physical integrity of the property has been altered in some way.

@FlyingAxe

If I have an inalienable right to my body, how come I can sell my kidney? Wouldn’t that be an alienation?

Your kidney is not your body. Once an organ is removed from your person, it is no longer part of your body anymore…is it.

Again, please see here, here, and here.

Also, I have heard libertarians argue that one can sell oneself to slavery.

I’ve also heard self-proclaimed libertarians argue that property is exploitative and immoral. That doesn’t make them right.

Barring that aspect, is there a natural-rights problem with the community (corporation) owning all objects in the community besides the bodies after people have given them up to the corporation?

You can contract in anything that is alieanable property. I don’t see where natural rights would conflict with such a contract.

but instead of arriving to it from a natural rights perspective, we build it a priori.

I’m not exactly sure how you do that, but okay.

From strictly legal (i.e., non-utilitarian) perspective, why ought not such system of rights exist?

Because it is illogical and inconsistant. Again, please see here (and for more, here.)

If we say that the purpose of the law is to resolve conflict of claims

I would argue law is more important in avoiding conflicts…the “resolving them as they arrise” part is secondary.

@FlyingAxe

the rule is that whatever you’ve homesteaded belongs to you, but whenever the society in which you live wants to revoke that ownership for the communal use (or to redistribute the property), it can.

So basically, whatever the majority says, goes. He who has the might makes the law. Mob rule. Yeah that’s always been a great recipe for avoiding conflict, as well as resolving it.

Strictly in terms of conflict resolution, such a system doesn’t seem to contradict the purpose of law. Where is the problem?

If you want to break it down that way, we could argue that anytime there is a conflict, the law says whoever dies first loses. That’s a pretty easy method of conflict resolution too. If you have a disagreement with someone, just shoot them. Problem solved. Conflict resolved. Sure would save a lot of time and money on judges, and arbitrators, and investigators, and all that other gobbledygook that comes with this overly complicated system of law you’re talking about where people have to get together and vote on things.