: Ah, but its not a 'right' to dispose of teh property, its more like a duty of careDuty to whom if not yourself and chosen values?
, it is not a 'right' in teh exclusive sense that it is theirs and theirs alone, it belongs to C2 as much as it belongsa to them.
So C2 could walk in and take. Infact they could do so without needing to produce for themseves at all. Bye Bye C1, and all who motivated her.
: Indeed, but they shouldn't, and I suspect wouldn't because as a matter of principle all communes are one commune...
I doubt it, considering the above scenario (takers) is very plausible.
: Doesn't matter, they are both part of teh world economy, teh whole point is that for socialism it must mean a sharing of resources, a single global economy, C1 may be practically self sufficient, but they are still part of the single commune with C2.
I can see why people individuate then.
: But my whole point is that for it to be socialism they are not seperate communes
hence socialism doesn come about, except in state nationalist socialism.
: C1 does not have exclsuive rights to its resources, its free to do as it pleases. Bear in mind that (since there are only two communes in our world) that if C1 doesn't help C2, they may end up with a immigration crisis (free movement remember) and have to 'dilute' anyway.
Again, you are saying that it is legitimate for some people to simply live off the produce of others, and that those others do not have the right to protect their produce from them. Exploitation.
Disastrous.
