: You mean those who excercise the property right (ie the right to dispose as chosen) by dint of use? Sounds similar to classical property rights. The process of saying no would also be similar.More or less, yes, except in socialism everyone would be a property holder, and would have an equal say in how 'their' property is run, or, more specifically, those in contact with a specific peice of property would manage it on behalf of all its owners (the entire world). However, teh decision need not be limitted thusly, but it may have to include everyone who will be effected, or who has an interest, and people themselves will have to negotiate and decide such things- essentially electoral constituencies would be ad-hoc, extending ever larger in case of dispute (Say a problem in Lancaster would have to be settled by the whole north-west voting, and if the north west can settle it, All England would vote, britain, western europe, upwards, etc. much like courts of appeal.)
: same thing. Joe farmer votes to use the fertilizer, the ten villagers vote not to. Joe is being stopped
But its their field to vote with, and the agent over the field is not farmer Jones, but the democratic collective. he has a plan, its rejected. tough, we'll try and reach a comprimise, but he recognises its in his self interest to abide by democratic decisions against him, because sometimes he will expect others to do the same when votes go for him.
: Ive got a feeling it could get mobs and rifles 'fun' in some issues.
I doubt it, I'm sure people could always increase the size of the vote, and determine matters by appeal to the wider community....
