RE: What will the world look like without rich people?
Conflict exists only when 2 or more individuals have mutually exclusive plans for the same scarce resource. To resolve conflict without violence requires consensus on which individual has the exclusive right to control the scarce resource and which must alter their plans.
Collective ownership is meaningless since saying all parties own the resource does not remove its scarcity and enable mutually exclusive plans to proceed. This is why what's marketed as collective ownership (typically called communism in my experience) is generally implemented as government ownership (socialism). People love the sound of everyone owning everything, but it's a self-contradiction. Preventing and resolving conflict peacefully will always require consensus on principles for establishing which individual owns (may exclusively control) a given scarce resource.
Do you define communism as a particular set of principles for establishing individual ownership of scarce resources?
First we would have to define what scarce is.
You got a particular substance in mind?
All ive found to be scarce is time and it isnt like anybody can give you more of that.
I define communism as working together to attain mutual goals.
Scarce means limited. If a resource is not scarce, no usage of it prevents other usages. Economic scarcity is independent of abundance/rarity. There may be plenty of land available elsewhere for both of us, but land is still scarce because if I decide to build on a piece of land and you decide to plant in exactly the same place, our plans come into conflict. I can build or you can plant, but not both. One or both of us must yield or find our efforts frustrated.
Likewise we can't both eat the same portion of food, or work using the same tool or machine at the same time.
Intellectual property is not scarce. We can both play the same song or build devices of the same design without conflict.
So what do you propose to resolve our land conflict?
Why build more then one need's or plant more then one needs , to gain .... power ? over others ? Why make things scarce true greedy market profit driven structures and laws .
Why not just share ...?
I'm with you, but producing an excess allows population growth that we will need to colonize the planets.
Keep working, stop paying does exactly that, share.
Money is the links in our chains.
Before we consider colonisation of other planet's we should first be able to get there .
you can't sell tickets for a merry-go-round if it isn't build yet . It will only create a long line of angry waiting customers .
And , lol , do you really want our darkness to colonize planets and spread true the galaxy ?
We humans have a long way to evolve , we are no where near the celestial being's we truly are .
If we evolve we might be able to leave the Earth without any rocket's or tech ;-) .
The Earth provides plenty to sustain mankind , but not enough for one man's greed . (Ghandi)
Im with you, but if the theorists have it right, weve been on the moon for 40 years.
Id be happy to retire in orbit so that i dont break my hip.
So for your life to have an easy end game you are willing to let human madness spread out true space ?
40 years yes , but no progression or evolution of space travel of any significant meaning .
Well can't blame you , i wish you a very pleasant retirement in orbit , if it ever becomes real ;-) .
When i retire i will leave this hump of flesh on the planet where it came from .
Or not and pop back up crying and shitting diapers to give it an other try ;-)
There's nothing harmful about what you're calling communism, but I don't think it's helpful either. If I can persuade you to work with me in building on the land to attain mutual goals or you can persuade me to work together in planting that's great, but basing a social system on the idea that everyone will just have the same goals and agree on how to achieve them together isn't useful. It denies the problem rather than offering a solution. I expect that what you actually mean by communism is much more detailed than that.
I propose that the right of the first user to own the resource should be respected until the resource is either abandoned or voluntarily transferred to a new owner. If I've already built something and the land and structure are not abandoned, you should not destroy the structure to plant. If you've already planted and have not abandoned the land, I should not destroy your crops and build.
Should two or more arrive simultaneously at a resource all desire to use exclusively, they should attempt to resolve the conflict among themselves through peaceful persuasion. If this fails, they may be able to agree on a mutually respected third party to resolve their conflict for them. When people are unable or unwilling to resolve conflict through peaceful consensus, violence is inevitable as the only means of resolution not dependent on any level of agreement.
The most controversial issue in all of this I think is the criteria for determining if property is abandoned. This is where I most conflict with some of those who call themselves capitalists. I don't think there's a perfectly clean logically derivable answer to this question, but my answer to this is based on the idea that the owner of property should not externalize the cost of determining ownership onto potential new claimants. In the absence of any indication that a resource is already part of another person's plans, there is no obligation to prove that the resource is unclaimed before claiming it.
I dont expect folks to agree on everything, many things will have to be worked out by those involved.
For me to make blanket statements about what they will do is presumptuous, and violates the priniple that they have to work through their own problems.
It appears that we are of the same mind on this.