Each person decides on their own which area in which they want to produce their part. It is no major issue either because in a town of 18,000 most people will only work maybe one 8 hour day out of an entire month to pull their community duty. If you don't want to study anything, be a sewer worker or do the garbage hauling. Jobs like those will be more swamped with people than the jobs that take more to learn, so that means more people. More people = less hours. To do something complex like become a surgeon, people would only let ya work on them if you have become qualified to do it (and we don't need government-approved qualifications either, the fact that they graduated and their reputation is qualification enough). Those jobs will probably be less saturated, so they'll work more hours. Still, jobs of that level will not require 40+ hour work weeks from each person because surgeons will be busting through schools much more easily once schools are no longer capitalist-exclusive and the students aren't having to work shit jobs to get through their years in school. See the competition doesn't exist in this scenario. There is always more room for more people because more people cuts back on everyone's hours. Everyone can work anywhere they want because it just means cutting back on everyone else's time they have to spend there without damaging people's "income" like it would today. No one needs income living like this, but if they want one, they can get into market socialism.
Being selfish works just fine in anarcho-communism. You have more freedom to be selfish in such a society than you do now. Being selfish feels pretty good in the current system, but I think selfishness would just be really boring in anarcho-communism. People could do that though. It wouldn't harm a thing as long as they weren't intruding on others or stealing. The rulers of today are selfish, they are intruding and they are stealing from others.
If an anarcho community is going to go to the trouble of establishing itself with utilities, agriculture, construction and so on, they aren't going to do it on flood plains. There's plenty of good land to do it on. The people who will live on flood plains will probably be the people who hate society and want to live in exile. There's no reason to live on a flood plain unless you just wanted to for some weird reason.
What does government do to solve "small" land disputes? Nothing that the people couldn't do on their own. Especially if you consider how people will not be clinging to a piece of land for dear life since they never sank any money into it in the first place in anarcho-communism. Without artificial restrictions, the solutions are more fluid.
On 2003-05-19 08:05:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The problem I see is that humans are inherently selfish. People generally look out for themselves before they look out for someone else.
I want my acre to be on a bluff over looking a river. Give some other poor sole the acre in the 5 year flood plain. You can have an acre in the desert. I?m not worried about the ?biggest land disputes? I?m worried about the small ones. If you decide to Why do you get to work at the power plant and I have to work at the sewage plant? You go work in the hot sun, picking citrus, while I sit on my butt in an air conditioned room monitoring the power plant. Who decides all this?
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-19 15:30 ]
