co-own

Related: citizen owned

Title ideas: "Concurrent Estate", "Estate as the State", "Own or be Owned"

Votes weighted by ownership %

Some examples that already occur:
1.) Some people joint-purchase an RV (Motor Home) so they can pay only costs.

2.) People used to co-own vacation homes before the Time-Share industry organized to take that over for the purpose of charging more than cost.

3.) Co-purchasing an airplane allows the group of users to share it amongst themselves - usually hiring a pilot to operate it and paying those wages as a cost, but realizing great savings since profit is not paid.

Co-ownership allows us to invest in industry that would be out of reach for individual owners because of financial constraints and the typical inability to fully utilize those Physical Sources.

Capitalists already use the strength of co-ownership against us when the joint-invest in for-profit corporations.

Without co-ownership we must do everything on our own or suffer paying profit to those who do own.

Capitalists will infiltrate any community we try to establish - just as they currently do - when they buy the land, water rights, net works, restaurants, meeting places, grocery stores, shopping malls, farms, factories, etc. that are more efficiently owned by more than one person.

Once they own that infrastructure, and if we are not "pushing against it" by organizing and co-owning for ourselves, then we will be overrun as usual.

Single-ownership is important for Personal property, but for as long as we continue to resist solving this problem of co-ownership will we be at the mercy of those that use it against us.

                ....

== Example Studies
There is a special economic case that occurs when the Owner of some Physical Sources (the material Means of Production) are also the Users of the Object[ive]s (output, product, purpose) of that production.

==== Case 1: Single-User, Single-Owner
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources (say an apple tree and 'supporting' sources such as land, water rights, tools) is the ONLY User of the Object[ive]s (apples, shade, wood):
* This base case is meant to show why Object Users should be Source Owners.
* The Owner of the Physical Sources (tree, etc.) is also the Owner of the Object[ive]s (apples, etc.) even before production is complete.
* The Owner has full control over the Object[ive]s because he is also the Owner of the Physical Sources.  If the Owner doesn't want dangerous chemicals sprayed, there are no questions asked.
* Abundance for others is not a problem, as the Owner seeks use-value (consumption), not exchange-value (profit).
* The Owner may choose to do any or all of the work.
* The Owner may pay a Worker to install, maintain, operate the Physical Sources, but the Owner cannot pay more than Costs (wages are a cost) except as an investment toward future production (say buying another tree or more land or more water rights or more tools, etc.).
* Unemployment is not a problem, the Owner wants all chores automated away.
* Ownership of Physical Sources is (imperfect) insurance that future Object[ive]s will be met.

==== Case 2: Multi-User, Multi-Owner
COLLECTIVE Owners Physical Sources are SOME of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This most important case covers the difficulties of Co-Ownership.
* All points of Case 1 apply.
* The Owners may charge Non-Owning Users a price above cost.  This may cause the Owners to seek scarcity of others (destroy all competitors) because reducing competition increases profit.  This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
*  Non-Owning Users do not have control.  This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.  This causes every User to gain Co-Ownership in Physical Sources (he now owns a tiny % in some new trees being planted for him and other non-owning users that are paying price above cost).  The ability for current Owners to collect profit against this User in the future (after his investment starts producing) is then reduced because that User will own as many "at-cost" Objects (apples) as his % of Physical Sources (tiny slice of the apple orchard) produces.  This may seem insignificant, but it adds up, and 'balances' the system.  By understanding profit to be a User's investment, we see his 'investments' (profit) tapers toward zero as he gains Ownership in Physical Sources because that Source Ownership also automatically gives him Object Ownership, and those Objects are a replacement (competition) for some of what the current Owners were selling.  As this settles, competition approaches perfection and no Objects (apples) even need be sold because the Consumers that need them already Own them even before they are produced because of their sufficient Ownership in the Sources of those Objects.  Whew!
* Owner votes are weighted by their % of ownership in each indivisible Physical Source.
* Minor groups who lose a vote may split/fork/divide from the majority.  If 80% of the Owners want the orchard sprayed, the remaining 20% can opt-out by partitioning off a section of the farm from those chemicals.
* Solutions to voting, granularity and divisibility can be very complicated, and this needs further discussion, but is not specific to Object Users being Source Owners.

==== Case 3: Multi-User, Single-Owner
INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources is ONE of the Users of the Object[ives]:
* This less important case occurs when the startup (booting) Costs are small enough for any single owner, or can otherwise be organized as Case 2.
* All points of Case 2 apply.
* Documenting this case is important for observing the transition between 'public' and 'personal' ownership.
* The Owner may claim any wage for management or labor he performs while claiming profit (price above cost) is zero.

==== Case 4: Single-User, Multi-Owner
* This is an unlikely case of unknown applicability.

== Conclusion
When this is running we will no longer need to "prop-up" wages because workers will push them higher through their ability to "hold out" when their consumption is protected when they have ownership in the sources of their own needs.

Investment from Object Users (price above cost or 'profit') is high in the early stages of development, but approaches zero as each citizen (consumer) gains their own percentage of real ownership in the Physical Sources of production.

One way to approach this is through a legally binding Social Contract that Owners could apply a to collective Physical Sources so profit would always be interpreted as User Investment whenever the products were given, rented, shared, sold or traded.

This inter-owner Trade Agreement should allow maximum divisibility so any user may opt-out or 'fork' their portion to treat it differently without needing the approval of all other owners.  For instance, let's say you have gained ownership in beef cattle because you paid PriceAboveCost for hamburgers.  You may vote (weighted by your % of ownership) on how ALL those animals are treated as a group, but if you have some special goals that few other owners would agree on, you can also *DIVIDE* out a realistic portion  from the whole if your ownership is large enough to meet the minimum granularity.  So if you want your animals to be fed grass instead of grain, the granularity would be at ''one animal'', since it is impossible to feed part of an animal one diet, and the other portion another...  In another case, if you are only concerned about how the meat is packaged, then the granularity is much finer, and you should be able to meet those goals - though it would be your responsibility to organize that division and to pay any extra costs (such as wages) required to do any extra work.

Any group of co-owners will disagree on policy over shared property.

Some types of 'contiguous' things, such as roads, sewer, water, electricity, gas lines, etc. need more logistic restrictions in their divisibility.

Profit is an inverse measure of competition and a direct measure of monopoly.  Profit is the portion of Price, Rent, Tax or Interest that goes beyond real costs.  That profit becomes usury unless it is treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it.

Profit should be interpreted as a plea for development because it measures consumer dependence.  Usury gained against consumers disrespects their natural desire to grow, so hampers true progress.

Profit collected as a reward for the owners is secondarily troublesome because it inverts the goals of that corporation from abundance and freedom toward scarcity and power.

If your are alone on the island and 20 more people suddenly arrive, how are 'we' going to decide how to collectively manage the available Physical Sources?

Collective ownership as a body - in-corp-oration is the original and only valid purpose of government.

Citizens and consumers are the same, and should be the owners for maximum performance, freedom and peace.

Whether you call it a church, a city, a club, commons, community, company, coop, corporation, county, cult... managing collective property is difficult.

Business and government are separated now only because we understanding that most businesses, especially the larger ones are somehow not fully aligned with the goals of the rest of society.  It is the mistreatment of profit that inverts our original goals of peace and abundance.

Owners may accidentally squander their inheritance.  1st-world nations are covered with barren and even poisonous plants and mostly worthless animals - no chickens in the yards and the bees are dying.

Originating Owners hold no special status; each consumer who pays more than cost becomes an investor in Physical Sources to insure their ownership of future Objects.

http://P2PFoundation.net/Category:User_Owned

....

Tenative proposal for a "Contract" or some kind of "Terms of Operation" for a business, organization, or even between just two property owners.

Wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshare

==DEFINITIONS:

    * The term 'Physical Sources' denotes Capital or Land such as living organisms, tools, real estate.
    * The term 'Object' denotes a tangible or ephemeral product, output or purpose of a Source such as the harvest from a farm, a ride in a car, the shade of a tree.
    * Ther term 'Type' denotes the class or variety of some thing with infinite potential such as the genetics of an organism, a computer program, video or audio data, the design of a tool.
    * The term 'Instance' denotes a single copy of any Type of thing such as a living organism, a CD containing a computer program or video/audio data, a physical tool.
    * The term 'Recipient' denotes an entity which receives a good or service.

==TERMS OF OPERATION
As owner, you may use this Object Instance for any purpose.  If you trade, sell, give, lease, rent or otherwise make this Object available to a Receipient you must:

1. Accompany that Object Instance with a paper or digital copy of this agreement.
2. Invest the difference between selling price and production costs in more Physical Sources.
3. The investment made in #2 shall vest to the Recipient as fractional ownership after ??? (time or condition)?

Some resouces to determine how "Common Law" usually effects these arrangements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Ownership In business, fractional ownership is a percentage share of an expensive asset.  Shares are sold to individual owners.  A fractional owner enjoys priorities and privileges, such as reduced rates, priority access on holidays and income sharing.  Typically, a company manages the asset on behalf of the owners, who pay monthly/annual fees for the management plus variable (e.g. per-hour, per-day) use fees.  For rapidly-depreciating assets, the management company may sell the asset and distribute the proceeds back to the owners, who can then claim a capital loss and optionally purchase a fraction of a new asset.

http://1st-of-Pryor.com/co-ownership%20contract.htm This agreement is provided to our pilot friends at no cost and for no consideration.  You are welcome to utilize it for whatever purpose you choose.  Please modify this agreement to suit your particular situation.  However, the First Pryority Bank of Pryor cannot and will not provide any assurance that the agreement is suitable for your situation and we will not provide any warranty or guaranty as to it accuracy, or legal validity.  You are electing to use the agreement by assuming any risk as to its legal correctness, validity, or consequences.

http://AndySirkin.com Vacation home co-ownership (sometimes also known as fractional ownership)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_estate A concurrent estate or co-tenancy is a concept in property law, particularly derived from the common law of real property, which describes the various ways in which property can be owned by more than one person at a given time.  The parties who own property jointly are referred to as co-tenants or joint tenants.  Most common-law jurisdictions recognize three kinds of concurrent estate: tenancy in common, joint tenancy with right of survivorship, and tenancy by the entirety.  Many jurisdictions simply refer to a joint tenancy with right of survivorship as a joint tenancy, but a few U.S. States treat the phrase joint tenancy as synonymous with a tenancy in common.

====Co-tenant
Co-tenants, irrespective of the type of tenancy, share certain rights relative to each other and to the property, except to the extent they have modified these rights through an agreement among themselves:

1. Each tenant has an unrestricted right of access to the property.  Where one co-tenant wrongfully excludes another from making use of the property, the excluded co-tenant can bring a cause of action for ouster,', and may receive the fair rental value of the property for the time that he was dispossessed.
2. Each tenant has a right to an accounting of profits made from the property.  If the property generates income such as rent, each tenant is entitled to a pro-rata share of that income.
3. Each tenant has a right of contribution for the costs of owning the property.  Co-tenants can be forced to contribute to the payment of expenses such as property taxes and mortgages on the entire property.

Co-tenants do not have any obligation to contribute to any costs of repairing or improving the property.  If one co-tenant adds a feature that enhances the value of the property, that co-tenant has no right to demand that any others share the cost of adding that feature - even if other co-tenants reap greater profits from the property because of it.  However, at partition, a co-tenant is entitled to recover the value added by his or her improvements of the property.  Conversely, if the co-tenant's "improvements" decrease the value of the property, the co-tenant is responsible for those decreases as well.

Furthermore, each co-tenant can independently encumber the co-tenant's own share in the property by taking out a mortgage on that share (although this may effectively convert a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common, as described below); other co-tenants have no obligation to help pay a mortgage that only runs to another tenant's share of the property, and the mortgagee can only foreclose on that mortgagor's share.  Bank loans secured by mortgages on individual shares of co-owned property is one of the most rapidly expanding areas in the mortgage lending industry.

Finally, co-tenants owe one another a duty of fair dealing.  Because of this, any co-tenant who acquires a mortgage claim against the property must give his co-tenants a reasonable opportunity to purchase proportionate shares in that claim.

====Tenancy in common
Tenancy in common is the default form of concurrent estate, in which each owner, referred to as a tenant in common, is regarded by the law as each owning separate and distinct shares which may differ in size.  This form of ownership is common where the co-owners are not married or have contributed different amounts to the acquisition of the property.  Also, if joint owners had attempted to use another form of joint ownership such as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship or a tenancy by the entirety, and the effort was for some reason invalid, the joint owners would then be tenants in common.  If conclusive evidence is not available of the desire to create a tenancy with rights of survivorship or a tenancy by the entirety, courts will determine that a tenancy in common has in fact been created.

Tenants in common have no right of survivorship, meaning that if one owner dies, that owner's interest in the property will pass by inheritance to that owner's devisees or heirs, either by will, or by intestate succession.

Destruction of a tenancy in common

Where any party to a tenancy in common wishes to destroy the joint interest, he or she can do so through a partition of the property - a division of the land into distinctly owned plots if such division is legally permitted based upon zoning and other local land use restrictions or, where such division is not permitted, a forced sale of the property followed by a division of proceeds.

If the parties are unable to agree to a partition, any or all of them may seek the ruling of a court to determine how the land should be divided up, physically divide it between the joint owners (partition in kind), leaving each with ownership of a portion of the property representing their share.  Courts may also order a partition by sale in which the property is sold and the proceeds are distributed to the owners.  Where local law does not permit physical division, the court must order a partition by sale.

Each co-owner is entitled to partition as a matter of right, meaning that the court will order a partition at the request of any of the co-owners.  The only exception to this general rule is where the co-owners have agreed, either expressly or impliedly, to waive the right of partition.  The right may be waived either permanently, for a specific period of time, or under certain conditions.