No it doesn't, the opposite: it assumes that owners will use their ownership to flex on you. The community/ethnostate/race whatever owning the arable land and the minerals and the rivers makes more sense than some guy saying it's his and the people have to suck his dick to get anything out of it
And that is why public restrooms are always immaculate, right?
The Tragedy of the Commons, man. Or maybe, "When everyone owns it, no one does. And when no one has a real, peraonal stake in it's quality and upkeep, it goes to crap. And that's only one of the many reasons socialist systems always fail.
That's how humans lived until 6000 years ago
With immaculate public restrooms?
Seriously though, if you're claiming people lived in harmony with no greed or the effects thereof, I'm going to have to ask for proof.
However, I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt and play the game for a moment. Let's assume people did life in a share-and-share-alike propertyless society. What was different that made that possible then, but seems to -by all experimental evidence- leave it impossible today?
(post is archived)