> Where does my use or possession end? For example, I trade two sheep for a bicycle which I need for transportation to get to my job. Can someone come along and take my bicycle any time I'm not using it? If so, how is this theft justified?
You either work out an agreement with the people who might take it that a bicycle be available for you after work or you just go and find another bicycle. It's funny you say this because bicycle and scooter sharing systems have become incredibly popular, because it's far more efficient than everyone having to keep their own vehicle for the long amount of time that they're not being used. Imagine if we didn't need to have parking for storing so many vehicles. The fact that you need a vehicle to be in a certain place at a certain time is a logistical issue that needs to be solved, but owning it as property that everyone else is excluded from using is not nearly the only solution.
If we structured society such that the accumulation of material wealth was infeasible, there would be far less need to worry about people going around and taking things they didn't legitimately need.
> It's why countries or communities that have gone down the road to socialism and communism have always invariably collapsed.
I'd argue this statement is completely unsupported. There has been no form of communism that hasn't been embattled by attacks from established capitalist systems at their outset, causing them to either consolidate into authoritarian centralized regimes in order to survive or to get wiped out in their infancy, and this centralization is what leads to failure. Socialist nations who have transitioned smoothly from capitalism have done so very successfully (take Norway). This may say bad things about the ability for a property-less system to survive in a capitalism-dominated system, but it doesn't say whether it would be capable of staying stable and successful in a less hostile environment.
> If we structured society such that the accumulation of material wealth was infeasible, there would be far less need to worry about people going around and taking things they didn't legitimately need.
Is there anything to stop people from just moving into and taking over my house when I go out for the day?
Also, I like having a car set up exactly how I like it, with music I like, the mirrors where I left them, and also with a few things in it that I might need even rarely.
Call me selfish but I don't want to deal with a dirty public car that may or may not be available when I want it. All other public things are dirty and unpleasant, I don't see why shared cars or bicycles would be any different.
> Socialist nations who have transitioned smoothly from capitalism have done so very successfully (take Norway).
Do you have a source for that? I'm pretty certain Norway (and other Scandinavian countries) are not socialist and more of a social democracy, where they simply provide a large social safety net through heavy taxation.
I believe they still very much are in favor of a free market economy.
The sovereign wealth fund, which is the real champion of Norway's current situation, is the result of nationalizing their natural oil reserves. Effectively, making the natural resources of Norway the property of all the Norwegian people.
You either work out an agreement with the people who might take it that a bicycle be available for you after work or you just go and find another bicycle. It's funny you say this because bicycle and scooter sharing systems have become incredibly popular, because it's far more efficient than everyone having to keep their own vehicle for the long amount of time that they're not being used. Imagine if we didn't need to have parking for storing so many vehicles. The fact that you need a vehicle to be in a certain place at a certain time is a logistical issue that needs to be solved, but owning it as property that everyone else is excluded from using is not nearly the only solution.
If we structured society such that the accumulation of material wealth was infeasible, there would be far less need to worry about people going around and taking things they didn't legitimately need.
> It's why countries or communities that have gone down the road to socialism and communism have always invariably collapsed.
I'd argue this statement is completely unsupported. There has been no form of communism that hasn't been embattled by attacks from established capitalist systems at their outset, causing them to either consolidate into authoritarian centralized regimes in order to survive or to get wiped out in their infancy, and this centralization is what leads to failure. Socialist nations who have transitioned smoothly from capitalism have done so very successfully (take Norway). This may say bad things about the ability for a property-less system to survive in a capitalism-dominated system, but it doesn't say whether it would be capable of staying stable and successful in a less hostile environment.