The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures. Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems.
no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.
For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required. Otherwise it's unstable. This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting. No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other. Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be
enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature. Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion. It's literally impossible.
:
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.
Yes, because it's an educated guess on the average. You see, people vary and it's difficult to nail down such a number because we kinda can't do social experiements on human beings in order to refine the guess.
I reject your argument, because its based on a guess.
your worldview says, that people are egoistic assholes. In a world full of egoistic assholes, its true that a free market/liberalism would work best, as everyone would pull equally hard to get their share.
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?
My thoughts are along the same lines as Moonshadow's. Collectivism will only work for groups smaller than some size. Maybe it is around 150, maybe it is higher... but there is
some number beyond which the human brain must stereotype. Collectivist groups can function within capitalist frameworks but not vice versa. Voluntary collectivism is unstable at large scales over multiple generations. However, I have my doubts that Lib/ancap societies could out-compete statist neighbors in the short term. It is likely that the ideal society is situation-dependent; the most robust solution is a system that can mutate to meet whatever current challenges it faces.
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?
Having some central group decide who gets what sounds
more inefficient. It is relative.
