i don't care if you don't want to watch it but trust me it contains an argument from a premise you're adopting argued to very different conclusions and I think you'd find it interesting. Ok onto the way to break your next post
If A enters into a voluntary contract with another party B for B to live with A and C consents to living with A but not with B, then how to determine who is allowed to live with who? Seriously, THINK about this problem for a while. You see how hard it is. We could say that we side against voluntary contracts in all instances, which would be a consistent and clear rule we could follow, but it's cruel, and insane. We CAN'T say we "democratically" resolve such disputes, because the RELEVANT parties are the ones with the conflict, meaning, peaceful, democratic negotiation has reached an impasse. To say that the WHOLE society, or indeed any outside party, need be involved in making that decision for A,B, and C, democratically as it were, smells like tyranny.
We need something to BREAK the impasse, that allows someone to walk away peacefully, either A, B, or C. Each needs to know how much he is valued by the others, and how much he values the property-defined-by-occupancy in relation to his antagonist(s). We need an objective third measure of value, in which all parties can compare how much each party values the property in relation to themself and their own interests, in order to make a peaceful transition of the conflict. If the parties are prevented from knowing each other's interests or at least valuation of the property that is to be lived in, then their dealings they are likely to wager more than they can truly afford to scare opponents into backing down from their claims. This leads to value bluff calls and massive conflict and war. Money provides this objective medium of valuation precisely, and provides information to all parties regarding all parties' intentions in atleast this respect of value.
what counts as a home and doesn't?
what counts as an enterprise and what doesn't
But what does "own"? mean? The concept you aim to remove keeps popping up everywhere in your "solution". If you examined what it would MEAN for everyone to "own" the apartment building, you'll see there is effectively NO difference from this system and the hierarchies and oppression we have now. In an apartment building for instance, it is CLEAR that the plumber OWNS the building, owns MORE of the building, than the rest do, because he KNOWS about more of it. The has privileged access to its structure, its inner workings, and could easily manipulate aspects of it to his advantage should he wish to. Perhaps he loosens the lugs on a tenant he doesn't like, etc.
Imagine you set up this minarchist bureaucratic enterprise you so carefully vaguely define; what kind of people will be attracted to such a position? What type of people become successful at it? Do they OWN more of the land and people than the proletariat do? In my definition of OWN, that is the ability to control the DESTINY of an object, they DO own MORE of it, because they can do more WITH it, and that is a practical matter of FACT and not a statement about their RIGHT to own it, they simply DO OWN it.
When the government tells me "You each own a piece pf the national park, Yosemite." what does that really MEAN? Can I go there and set up a cabin anywhere I like? WHY NOT? Because obviously it's a fiction that I "own" it, while it is NOT a fiction that the government DOES own it.
sage for off-topic fuck you socialist faggot came here to agree with op I think this is already happening, companies will become more like medieval guilds in the future, secrecy already paramount for big-tech, industrial espionage and intelligence are growing fields, each company more insular as result of of predatory treatment by other firms and consumers.
