got memed ; /

@SHEPARD D☭G Opens the door to coersion.

https://youtu.be/Qx5qDhm-zGE

@Ulithian no it doesn't you straight up abandoned something you simply abandoned it there's no application of force

Unless you write your phone number on every single candy wrapper beer can and any other Petty object you can think of then there's no way to even contact the original owner if someone wanted respect the property rights of abandoned items

Thus the conditional ownership makes far more sense then attempting to keep ownership permanently

Abandonment is one thing, using conditional property rights to legitimise theft of idle business is another.

an Owner Operator who fell sick is ripe to be exploited by conditional property rights.

You would consider it an exploitation of their labour

if workers just took his business from him.

@Ulithian wait for the mental gymnastics

@Ulithian there is no exploitation

If the property is abandoned then it's abandoned and clearly not desired by its original owner anymore

Those are the conditions that you think are repressive

@SHEPARD D☭G you completely ignored my argument.

That's because ignoring basic concepts is not an argument

How are you being coerced into giving up abandoned property when you have abandoned it?

Being sick and abandonment are completely different things

The only people who would try to coerce you for being sick would be some sort of Might is right authoritarian

Which is significantly different than someone rooting through your garbage can or cutting away some of the overgrown weeds to a spooky Mansion that was forgotten years ago

"ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation" that's my definition of mutualist property rights

I have only provided an example where this criteria could be met without abandonment.

"The only people who would try to coerce you for being sick would be some sort of Might is right authoritarian" regardless of system you will always have assholes try and take advantage of your situation.

Can you please @SHEPARD D☭G @Ulithian help you keep convos in topic specifics instead of liberty lounge, videos, etc. this is either <#612182185432055828> or <#612182055077412896>

Soon I will be making it to where video, memes, selfies, etc, are post only and no texting will be allowed to solve this problem

No worries

Mainly for him jot you

😂😂😂

Not

<:Bakard:612150766609629194>

Autocorrect

@Ulithian your example of someone being sick makes the assumption that sick people are incapable of owning using an occupying anything

When illness does not actually inhibit your ability to live somewhere or use items

oof

E

We don't actually care

We just think that it's inefficient

Personally I don't give a fuck

Imho there are cases where a co operatives structure makes more sense.

Unless you pull that theory of occupation then come steal my property cause I wasn't using

Can you defend it?

if yes, then occupancy is irrelevant

Co ops would do great for charities, rehabilitation centers, and businesses with similar requirements

@Jonathan The Shaman so basically any and all forms of Industry

Nope, r&d required businesses wouldn’t benefit the workers or consumers much as a co op

So take those out then maybe