Lets say there are two towns, living in a collectivist direct democracy world. We shall call them C1 and C2. Both C1 and C2 has collective ownership of a number of materials. In C1 the democratic collective effort of the people result in them successfully producing for their collective needs. In fact, the people of C1 happened to be more motivated and more able than the people of C2, due to a natural variation in its individuals. C1 is self sufficient in food, housing, goods and even a few luxuries.C2 however is not. Its most able and motivated people had left, freely and democratically (thats ok right?), and been enthusiastically invited into other collectives and the people of C2 have not been as productive with their resources.
The people of C2 have democratically decided that C1 should help them out by either giving them some produce or by 'democratically' rehousing some of the C1 producers to C2. C1 people decide that this is not in the collective democratic interest of C1.
The people of C2 are facing disease and starvation. C1 has *not* caused this in any way. C1 can help out but at a cost of reducing their standard of living to a basic shelter and food only level.
How do you think the above situation of 'inequality' should be resolved? Should C1 work to support C2 indefinately, at the cost of their standard of living? Should C2 forcibly take property from C1 to equalise their standard of living? Should C1 carry on as a successful collective, having no part in the cause of C2s demise and therefore having no obligation toward it? Should C1 invite the people of C2 to live with them, in the hope that those poeple would become more productive - but at the risk they may not be, and end up diluting the standard of living for the original C1 people? Do C1 people have the right to refuse to share their collective produce with the people of C2? what are the consequences if they do not?
Other answers?
