What Surfing Can Teach You about Ownership – Learn Liberty

What Surfing Can Teach You about Ownership – Learn Liberty


If you want to understand ownership there
are some things you need to know about surfing. Suppose that George, Sam, and Jill go surfing
together one day. Now they’re all friends, so no one wants to grab all the good waves.
The point is for everyone to have a good time surfing. So now the first good wave begins
to break and no one wants to be selfish about it, so they look around at each other wondering
whose wave it is. And by now that wave is gone. This is not a good time surfing. What George, Sam, and Jill need is a way to
determine the ownership of the waves so that everyone gets a chance to say. “This next
wave is mine.” That’s not because they’re being selfish, though. It’s precisely because
they’re not being selfish. The selfish thing would be to do away with that sort of system
and just start pushing and shoving. People who want peace instead of pushing and shoving
need a way to determine whose wave is whose. Ownership is a right to tell other people
no. If you own a smart phone, then other people can’t use your smart phone without your permission.
But you don’t need their permission to use your phone. Now that might make it sound like
ownership is something really selfish. In fact, though, it’s the opposite of selfish. That’s why ownership is so important in society.
For one thing, ownership lets us all be more creative and do things we want to do. When
people can own resources, they can prosper from developing those resources and making
them more valuable. Then they can exchange with each other and create even more prosperity. Second, ownership actually puts a check on
selfishness and greed. When people’s ownership isn’t protected, greedy people are free to
come through and push everybody else out of the way. But with a strong ownership system
you can tell greedy people no. That also makes conservation possible: When people can say
no, they can stop other people who don’t just want to use resources but want to use them
all up. Plus, a lot of the things that we want to do are totally unselfish things. Who
knows? Maybe your biggest ambition in life is to give things away. It takes a system
of ownership to protect your right to make that choice. And third, ownership helps us all get along
with greater civility and fairness. Ownership allows us to set things aside for our own
use. So really, respecting ownership is a way of respecting each other as we go about
using the things that we depend on. But when ownership isn’t protected, it’s generally
the most vulnerable people, people without power and political connections, that suffer
the most. Other people with more power can then run them off their land or collect their
money in the form of a subsidy or a bailout. If we care about fairness for everyone then
we have to care about ownership.

Antonio Breitenberg

Related Posts

100 thoughts on “What Surfing Can Teach You about Ownership – Learn Liberty

  1. Tony Rouse says:

    That's awesome.

  2. kennethphilpot says:

    why is it horrible?

  3. fleetcenturion says:

    Seriously, you guys need to come up with better analogies.
    You also need to learn something about surfing. Waves are fairly big, and come along one after the other. You might also take the time to notice that a typical beach has more than 3 surfers. Spontaneous order plays a huge part.

  4. TheBilliejones says:

    HAHAHA this guy clearly hasn't spent any time surfing at any competitive breaks.

  5. Zack Sari says:

    I do not agree with this man at all

  6. diabolicallaughter says:

    I was very bothered by this speaker's misuse of the concept of selfishness.

  7. MrSeagull says:

    I agree, he seems to fall into the same misconceptions of selfishness that the general public erroneously accept. Equating selfishness with an irrational desire to everything by force and theft is unfortunate; and to somehow suggest that the individuals who keep and respect property are being altruistic is beyond reason.

  8. jowb63 says:

    Agreed. Professor Russel please read what Ayn Rand had to say about selfishness and use another word for the taking this by force like coercion.

  9. Daniel Gjörwell says:

    To all you people that talk about selfishness not being the right word: Can't you see he it's that word so people (to whom you refer) will understand. You guys come across as pretentious nitpicking at words rather than focusing on the principle.

  10. Andrew Stover says:

    Stay classy, Iashkaretoiba.

  11. PissedFechtmeister says:

    How is the devotion to balance not ideological?

  12. drgerke says:

    More childish, myopic examples from the folks at Learn Liberty. The idea that people agreeing to common ownership (here of 'waves' – sigh would result in a kind of wasteful indecision, as if resources speed by us and we need good old property right to seize the moment, is obvious nonsense. A 'collectivist' response would be to say 'you take every first wave, you every second, me every third' – its easy to see how this approach could work in society at large.

  13. PissedFechtmeister says:

    There's nothing magical about the number 3. It could be any number greater than 1 and the logic of the argument is unchanged. The frequency of the waves is similarly irrelevant. Spontaneous order would be the emergence of property rights.

  14. L. Wayne Mathison says:

    Tribalism. How regressive.

  15. drgerke says:

    Me or the video?

  16. Anthony Higa says:

    Unfortunately many surfers just bully others for waves, but I do agree with the philosophy of ownership.

  17. Learn Liberty says:

    [NEW VIDEO!] Ownership means peace, prosperity, fairness, and civility. Sounds like a pretty good deal.

    #libertarian   #philosophy   #liberty   #ownership   #welfare   #learnliberty  

  18. Ducati Drew says:

    What a joke. Right up their with creationism.

  19. PissedFechtmeister says:

    You're still using an ideology that says that you should balance freedom vs social benefit.

  20. Lobos222 says:

    I dont think its a good example of ownership because its not ownership, but collective consensus. It would make more sense if Communists used the surfer example…

    Example: "The reason ownership is bad is because if someone owned the waves then surfer nr 2 and 3 wouldnt be able to surf,but with equal access and a shared agreement everyone can surf."

    Ownership is a dual edged sword that needs sane regulation.
    Owning a house is ok,but is owning a large forest and denying common public access ok?

  21. MrSeagull says:

    If someone owns a piece of land of any size, be it a forest, desert, or beach, no one has the right to tell them who is allowed access. Natural rights are not subject to the whim of the majority.

  22. PeaceRequiresAnarchy says:

    Haha, I only had my left ear bud in since I can't hear what's going on near me through my headphone. 🙂

  23. PeaceRequiresAnarchy says:

    Even if you are selfish and don't care about others, you should still support ownership. It's in your self-interest to do so to avoid conflicts with others. So I don't quite agree with the video saying that ownership isn't selfish. Both selfish people and people who want to help others should support at least roughly libertarian ownership.

  24. Veritas says:

    You guys just gotta render things in mono, since the recording was probably a mono recording. So the audio track should be set to mono as well, or else it'll just use the mic input as one side of a stereo track.

  25. Zephyr López Cervilla says:

    The Government shouldn't build anything.

  26. Zephyr López Cervilla says:

    Why not?

  27. tubeboy8 says:

    And we just happen to be victims of nature's practical joke to have placed so much of our petroleum 'property' under soil located in the middle east.

  28. Zephyr López Cervilla says:

    Not necessarily. Take for instance the use of a different kind of waves, the sound. We don't allow people to exert exclusive control over the use of sound waves to speak, communicate each other or play music except for within the boundaries of their property. Translated to the present example, we would require a previous homestead of the coastline to respect the imposition of restrictions over the surfing on these waves.

  29. Zephyr López Cervilla says:

    No, there aren't. You should remember who developed nuclear bombs and who can afford to build those weapons. They weren't private citizens but organized gangs funded with coercion and violence, implementing evil means to achieve their goals such as destruction of buildings and the slaughter of people who live in other countries.

  30. Веселин Жилов says:

    Leaving the headphone cord only half-plugged resolved the problem for me.

  31. Веселин Жилов says:

    This professor in general (including this video) doesn't make very convincing or impressive points. I'm saying this as a person who likes this channel.

  32. Zephyr López Cervilla says:

    In such case, the worst case scenario would be that those private citizens became nuclear powers, just like the superpowers that exist today, and that they could use such power in way similar to the way that nuclear powers use nuclear weapons today: to prevent the attack or invasion by other superpowers, to justify the existence of the armed forces, to impose restrictions over the use of fissible material.
    As long as it didn't become a monopolistic business we would still be better off.

  33. PissedFechtmeister says:

    Sound waves are different because different people can still use the same air at the same time for making sounds.It could happen that enough people want to talk that any communication would be drowned out in the noise.A kind of property rights can then be established where each person is allowed to speak in turn,i.e. they each have time limited exclusive property rights over the sound waves.In the video I think it was implied that the wave was small enough that it could only support one surfer.

  34. fleetcenturion says:

    Spontaneous order in this case would determine how people use a resource that is limited for the moment, but constantly renewing. This is also the reason the analogy is so bad, and is poorly applied to a person's rights of ownership. Laws are not what emerge from spontaneous order, just general management of time and resources by a group during a given activity.

  35. PissedFechtmeister says:

    Ownership doesn't need to be forever, and usually isn't.

  36. fleetcenturion says:

    If you can't be free to sell or use it as you please, it cannot be owned. Like I said before, it's just a shitty analogy.

  37. Mark Stouffer says:

    You undermine yourself when you try to deny selfishness. That will be used against your self later down the road, or wave.

  38. Goldifying says:

    I thought this channel was socialist.

  39. niupaidanui says:

    This video is targeted at people on the left.

  40. PissedFechtmeister says:

    But a wave can be owned, if only for a short time.

  41. Christopher Munce says:

    I own lamp

  42. 5Cats says:

    Learn Liberty videos just keep getting better & better!
    We humans simply CANNOT "share everything, everytime" Ok? It's just impossible. So give it up! Hippies and commies! It is never, ever, going to happen.

  43. takakyoma says:

    But there's still the problem of who should have the ownership of a particular resource. And that is largely determined by the price mechanism, which is inherently unfair since only those who have money in the first place gets it.

  44. golemkonty says:

    the same old 5000 years lie, that we have to own things so we can be happy or to be free!We cannot own physically no object, because there is no physical way to "own" anything, therefore, ownership is just an idea that has no physical representation in physical reality.Ownership is one of the main prerequisitions for a hierarchical systems of domination such as slavery, feudalism, socialism and capitalism and it is a reason for more than one billion deaths in the last 113 years alone!

  45. arcanekrusader says:

    Selfishness and self-centredness are very different things.

  46. diabolicallaughter says:

    Yes, but that's no excuse for sloppy use of language. Words have certain meanings, and that needs to be respected. It's about intellectual accuracy. The word/concert of selfishness has been hijacked and maligned,so it is very important to "take it back."

  47. HomelessOnline says:

    Nah, I'm a leftist, I only want to give away other peoples' stuff. No responsibility falls on me that way. /sarc

  48. Keegan Idler says:

    I was kind of hoping to here how surfers decide ownership of waves. I've been yelled at before but never had it explainedto me why.

  49. Servius Terentius says:

    What causes ownership to exist? Not as a social phenomenon, but an objective one. I am baffled by it.

  50. Jesse Forgione says:

    Why would it be "selfish" to do the irrational and destructive thing?

    "You keep using that word…"

  51. Nick Russell says:

    Just a name for one of the relationships between your mind and the physical world out there. There are other relationships, but the one called 'ownership' seems to work best for most people.

  52. Nick Russell says:

    How wrong can you be. The price of a loaf of bread is the same for a millionaire as it is for me. Neither of us wants more than one loaf of bread, so I get mine and the millionaire gets his. Under socialism, to choose another way of distribution, the powerful ones get all the bread and I get none.

  53. Nick Russell says:

    Why would you? It would cost you far more to do that than you would ever get back by using them.

  54. Jason Cox says:

    But isn't this the concept that the mass media and progressive political parties push on America? That ownership is selfish. That when an individual or corp "owns" something, it's just a step towards what they "really" want – to own EVERYthing. Thus ownership=greed. Or perhaps ownership begets greed. That seems to be the mass media message and what is being addressed here.

  55. John Kuchta says:

    The respect of peoples property right are just not practiced in the United States anymore. It is sad the people need to be told how to respect peoples ownership, but I understand why. People always want what someone else has. What is even more sad is they never want to work for it. It is all gimme gimme.

  56. Eileen the Crow says:

    John Smith, your question does nothing to the libertarian or anarchists argument. Seriously i can defeat that point pretty easily.

  57. n larson says:

    um, is it just me or have these videos really gone down hill? Are you trying to teach 3 yr olds or are you trying to reach thinking adults?

  58. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    This article answers your question:

    voluntaryistreader.wordpress(dot)com/2012/12/23/nuclear-weapons-in-libertarianism/

    Also I should point out that if you trust government with weapons of mass destruction than you're a hypocrite. You cannot delegate rights you do not have. How can individuals not have a right to own something, but a group of individuals calling themselves "government" magically get the right to own it?

  59. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    5,000 years ago there was no concept of ownership because no one had anything of worth. Bands of humans would hunt, and gather, but this was barely enough to sustain them. There was rarely, if ever any excess production of food which meant there was no spare time to make extra tools, and clothes with which to trade. Whenever a dispute did break out over something it usually ended in violence. The strong would always get the extra piece of meat.

  60. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    What? Why?

  61. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    Yes, provided they have the means to store the weapons in such a way that they do not pose a threat to anyone if detonated accidentally. It'd be like me storing a hand grenade in a blast proof bunker instead of in the room of my house adjacent to your house.

  62. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    Would you lock a man in a cage, and kill him if he resists merely for possession of a nuclear weapon?

  63. Eric Walters says:

    Sadly, the people who desperately need these concepts, need to be spoken to like 3 year olds :-/

  64. Goldifying says:

    Don't know. I remember seeing an older video in that nature. And it seems most liberals today verge onto socialism.

  65. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    LearnLiberty has always been libertarian which is about the farthest from socialism one can possibly get.

  66. Goldifying says:

    Genuine libertarianism is very much left wing. It's revolutionary.

  67. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    In Europe perhaps.

    In America Libertariansim is very much pro propertarianism, and pro free market capitalism.

    I know of Libertarian Socialism, but I've never been able to get a consistent answer from any of them regarding their separation of private, and personal property. I also understand a number of them reject the labor theory of value which bewilders me since I thought that was the whole basis for the "capitalists exploit workers" argument.

  68. Goldifying says:

    Well then I'm glad I came across this channel.

  69. Personmr says:

    i would say no. having said that: i don't think the government should make more. the only problem i can see with the us disarming all its nukes is that countrys with radical populations that get nukes may be more inclined to use them on us. please understand that there are different types of libertarians, ranging from libertarian socialists who want to turn productive property into a public good, to people who are almost anarchists.

  70. Personmr says:

    please read up on the different types of libertarianism.

  71. Goldifying says:

    The terms liberty, liberal and libertarian are all deeply misconstrued in the media and by those who claim to be social revolutionaries; of course I wasn't vouching for literal socialism, that would be an exaggeration, but liberalism today sways more to the left than right. Take for example the 'Racial Inequality in the criminal justice system' video which is from the LearnLiberty channel; the topic is very much a socialist argument.

  72. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    Do you think anyone would have taken Albert Einstein seriously if his theories were as ambiguous as Libertarian Socialism?

  73. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    I used to think the same, but it's not as oxymoronic as it sounds. Their socialism is different. They don't mean state ownership over the means of production, they mean social ownership such as in mutual aid societies, communes, and worker cooperatives. The thing is capitalism doesn't preclude any of these things. You can have Libertarian Socialism inside Anarcho Capitalism, but not the other way around because they hate Capitalism.

  74. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    Obviously I have. There's minarchist, and anarchist verities, as well as pro, and anti capitalist subsets of the anarcho libertarianism.

  75. PissedFechtmeister says:

    If the wave is only big enough for one person then which one gets to use it?

  76. Eileen the Crow says:

    (1) Oh right, nearly forgot about you.. Ok let's run through it shall we?

    Who do you fear gaining control of nuclear weapons? Crazy people mostly right? Well heres the thing, the only people in recorded history that have been crazy enough to actually use them are government officials.. so its not like they are guardian angels. Ordinary people, or rather 99% of all crazy people are way too poor and/or stupid to even know how to go about acquiring nuclear weapons.

    So if normal people could —

  77. Eileen the Crow says:

    (2) could never get their hands on them anyways, the only segment of the people we need fear are the extremely rare top 1% of people who are both insane AND multi-million / billionaires. I'm thinking there might be like 20 of those in the entire world, but we know for a fact its a pretty small club. Not counting a weapons collector or enthusiast who just wants a deactivated one for historic value or whatever.

    Now, what prevents an insane super-rich person from getting their hands on these —

  78. Eileen the Crow says:

    (3) nuclear weapons today (under current law)..? I mean these aren't some made-with-stuff-from-under-the-kitchen-sink type bombs.. they are extremely expensive, very rare, heavily guarded, carefully stored weapons. This tells me that the only type of person capable of getting them, in either a libertarian society, or our current one, is the mad ultra wealthy power hungry person.. Exactly the type of person likely to already work in government, where they will have the best chance at making a —

  79. Eileen the Crow says:

    (4) deal with the foreign officials that would have the bombs for sale, or could let a couple "vanish" from the inventory sheets for a bribe.. So the people we should fear from getting them in a libertarian society, are the people with the best chance of getting them in a statist one.

    Get it? The law is powerless to stop the only people we need to worry about.

    Really, in a free society, we'd have no nukes, there is only a high demand to make the damn things at all BECAUSE of government.

  80. Eileen the Crow says:

    (5) So in short yes, there is no reason to ban nukes, because nobody crazy enough to actually use one could ever get their hands on them anyway. In a libertarian society, nukes wouldn't even be funded and developed because they give us nothing but destruction.. only the government has enough money and power to demand they be built.. the smart people (like einstein) wouldn't have actually ever made them on their own.

  81. Leo Buzalsky says:

    "is the mad ultra wealthy power hungry person.. Exactly the type of person likely to already work in government" I'm sorry, but what planet do you live on? Last I checked, the Koch, as a close example, brothers do not work in government. They're probably not mad, but I would hope we can agree to ultra wealthy power hungry. For me, the type of person I would be more worried about would be someone near the top of a weapons manufacturing company. (Or maybe I watch too much Iron Man?)

  82. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    Do you think there should be a government?

  83. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    According to their wiki they don't wish, or intend to use force. Instead they believe worker co-ops, syndicates, communes, and such would attract workers away from conventional capitalist businesses. If that's the case then so be it, but I doubt it.

  84. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    Anarchy means no rulers, not no leaders. A leader is someone you choose to follow, whereas a ruler is someone who forces you to follow. If the 30 kids can't agree on the rules then they won't be able to play the game.

    Somalia is more peaceful, and prosperous than it was when it had a government. It's also more peaceful than the neighboring states. You're thirty times more likely to get murdered in the city of Detroit than you are in the entire country of Somalia.

    Government is always abusive.

  85. Eileen the Crow says:

    Probably lol.. But in the end even if they aren't in government, the type of person that we would be afraid of getting them, is the type that will be able to get them regardless of the legality.

  86. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    What right do you have to choose a leader for anyone but yourself? Political democracy is simply a group of people forcing their will on smaller groups of people.

    Governments cause humans to fight each other more. More people have died in government's wars, and genocides in the last century than by the hands of all the individual murderers in recorded history. Government can't exist in a population that is fundamentally opposed to government. Tax collectors would be treated as common thieves.

  87. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    So you think people are too stupid to get along without government? This is circular reasoning: People are bad therefore we need a government made up of people are bad therefore we need a government made up of people are bad… ad infinitum.

  88. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    If that's your definition of government than logically Wall Mart is a government as is every other organization on the planet.

    No, a government is specifically a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

    In your soccer example no one is forced to participate, or forced to fund the supervising body. It's all done voluntarily.

  89. flippyhambone says:

    "Somalia is more peaceful, and prosperous than it was when it had a government."? ?? …there goes your credibility 🙂 spool…spool…

  90. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    I can list several real world examples. Gaelic Ireland, the Icelandic Commonwealth, and any frontier in any period of history. For instance in the old west the violent crime rate was far lower than in the cities back East despite there being no significant government presence. Gaelic Ireland existed without a central government for over 1,000 years, and in that time it was one of the most advanced societies in Europe.

  91. AnonVoluntaryist says:

    The government in Somalia was very a very brutal communist regime. Any form of dissent was met with brutal violence. There was no free speech, no freedom of association, or organization. These were all capital offenses punishable by death.

    So yes, Somalia has been orders of magnitude more peaceful, and prosperous with anarchy.

  92. Drew Nelson says:

    The peace sign may have satanic origins associated with either the crows foot or the broken cross, but symbols are given power by the the people who see them, and the interpretations they are given. To many, the peace sign represents peace; nothing more, nothing less. Learn Liberty is a libertarian (not liberal) organization that promotes private ownership as shown in the video above. Learn your facts, and stop judging according to superficial appearances and emotionally biased preconceptions.

  93. Drew Nelson says:

    I've watched my fair share of documentaries, my friend. Believe me, I'm well aware of how the world works. When I said "to many, the peace sign represents peace", I never claimed the same for myself, but rather the opposite. However, this is beside the point. Those representing Learn Liberty do not practice or advertise liberalism, but Libertarianism. Let go of your bias regarding the misuse of symbols, and actually listen to the message this video is putting out, because that's what matters.

  94. Drew Nelson says:

    You say it's common sense, and you're absolutely right. Most individuals understand the concept. However, lots of people disagree on whether private ownership truly benefits individuals and society. This video, categorized under education, argues that it does. The video is an educational tool with a libertarian message behind it, yet because it had several peace signs in it, you are convinced that it was made by brainwashed hippies with a liberal agenda. Your argument is completely baseless.

  95. Vicious Ranger says:

    I'm not a surfer, but what exactly about person A surfing a wave, stops person B and C from also doing it?

    What happens when five people want to take turns surfing, but only three waves come in, in other words when the demand for the resources exceeds the availability?

    Is this just a horrible analogy, or am I missing something here? I like these videos, but the surfer analogy just isn't working, they should've picked something else.

  96. Vicious Ranger says:

    Please realize that as soon as you accuse somebody of "Worshipping Satan" you love all credibility.

    How on Earth could I possibly take you seriously when you honestly believe that just because somebody doesn't hold YOUR viewpoints, that they're some evil person who worships Satan?

    You're an intellectual infant who thinks that only you are right, and if anybody disagrees with you, it isn't due to the fact that they're taking into account things which you aren't, but rather they worship Satan.

  97. Servius Terentius says:

    Thank you, that does make more sense. So, it's not really an objective phenomenon. Just a sort of agreed upon arrangement or relationship by society?

  98. NotAsian says:

    I don't get it either.

  99. Mike Fedyk says:

    it is sad that videos like this even need to be produced

  100. TheaDragonSpirit says:

    No they don't obviously not a surfer. They get enough room to surf. And if they share the waves… their still not owning the waves.  All they are doing is giving one the right to access that wave before the other. They don't own it. It isn't their wave or ocean. They just let the other person ride the wave, because they get a go on it next. Meaning it isn't their wave, it's no ones wave or its all peoples wave, In which they give each other the right to passage over using force to have a go on the wave. But no one owns that wave. Far from it. And in most cases you usually have enough room. And you give each other room out of curtsey. Not out of some bull shit of ownership. But out of respect and consideration.

    No ownership does not allow people to be more creative, not in any way, not at all. If you put me in jail, unless you sedated me, I could just be as creative as if I was able to do what ever I wanted.  Not that I want to be in jail, just saying creativity doesn't come from ownership. Creativity comes from ones self. It has feck all to do with ownership. Having access to tools that make it easy to be creative doesn't need me to own it. I can go to library or a school, or rent a computer and can still be just as creative. Ownership does not allow me to be more or less creative. Not in any fecking way. Not having access to what I need stops me being creative, which ownership makes it harder to get what I need.

    If I commit a crime. I go to my house and say you get off my land, you have no access here… wait you can't do that. The police would invade and take you away. Not that I am saying do crimes, just that you don't actually own anything really. It's a con. You have access rights. Their is no such think as ownership. Its a big pile of shit, most probable to con people in to working to do someone else is dreams, instead of people working on their own dreams. Which is fine if you agree with others dreams, but if you don't you are a slave to their system.  

    Ownership is a big pile of shit. The only reason people take part in it is because they see no other way.  And they do actually believe in respect and curtsey. They would use any pen and be respectful of the pen and put it back if they knew they could use it later. Ownership actually means that people might be less respectful to what is not theirs. Allow people fair use of everything, they would see it as all theirs and care about protecting it.

    Whats more annoying is the fact it is like. And if you buy in to ownership, then people can own more shit, in order to get more shit… right wait. So what your saying is. If I believe your shit on ownership… I get the ability to own more, but less access to others stuff, meaning who has all the money has all the access rights.

    What are the other methods? What about sharing all resources and giving people good access to all resources. What about rather than just owning a few things we say all owns everything and their should be fair use policy and we keep doing what we do to advance technology so people get more things they can use. Surely this would be better, with equal power in voting? And no need for money just systems that give each other the common curtsey to allow them to have a go on anything, and aim in the future to give all who need access to stuff more, so they can have better access to it rather than being limited. The only ownership that is needed is for sentimental value of things. As in for gifts. But in the future anything given can be scanned and re-made instantly. So anything hand made could be replicated, if we go down that path. But other than that which is sentimental, their is no reason for ownership.

    Instead of it all being shared out using a different system which gives all good access to pretty much anything… And allows people to keep anything that they feel is sentimental. Their is literally no reason to have laws on ownership, par to prevent ownership, for example you can't own people. You can't own animals, you don't own nature. The only thing you do have is access to use stuff that comes from this, and that is how you want it. Why ? Because it removes a lot of restrictions in life that force people in to a money economy which forces them to work when their tired, and to jump through hoops. It gives a lot more freedom. The only problem would be working out systems to allow people access, and ways to keep maintenance of that which exists. Which all comes with teaching people responsibility, respect, and morality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *