Joint ownership is already a thing in capitalism. Two or more people jointly owning a resource in no way implies that they must submit to a monopolistic arbiter of force. In fact, it's only when resources are jointly shared by everyone that a monopoly disappears.
Anyways, since you're interested in individualism, I recommend that you read Max Stirner. He does criticize communism to be sure, but he also points out the collectivist and totalitarian element inherent to capitalism. His solution? Egoism.
-
-
So why would it be in my self-interest to respect the property of capitalists since their holding of property deprives me of my own? Murray Rothbard was a twisted moralist who rationalized the selling of children as property and of police violence against the homeless.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
If rights are inherent then they shouldn't need to be enforced as they would simply be there. In a natural system, it is not possible to "go against nature" since every aspect of the system is nature. In actuality rights are not inherent, they are socially constructed.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.