Doesn't this make the State de facto OWNER?
It makes the State the de jure owner; de facto, the States engages in thievery, burglary, and robbery.
I agree.
However, there is usually some individual who wields outsized control.
Either a CEO or a Chairman, or a 51% stakeholder (Corporate Raider).
The point here is that the workers themselves do not get a vote.
And that CEO or Chairman is held accountable by a board of directors.
So, DEFINITELY NOT "THE STATE".
If you choose to define it as such; I've chosen the other two.
Primarily I'd like people to UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.
Putting a single organization (river-corp or river-authority) "in charge" of the river can often be WORSE than "nothing".
Doing "nothing" is obviously very bad.
AND policing water usage and dumping is ridiculously resource intensive.
What you'd hope would be that people would "respect the river" and "play nice" and "only take what they need" and "not be idiots".
But what we end up with is THE FREE-RIDER PROBLEM.
More specifically, if the cost of a resource is shared, then people who don't use that resource or under-use that resource are "penalized" and those who over-use that resource are "rewarded".
HOLACRACY SEEMS TO BE A "BETTER" FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING SHARED RESOURCES.
I'm curious how you, personally, might approach this "problem".
I'd privatize it. Have everyone who'd lay claim to the river (presumably because their lands are adjacent) form a contractual agreement that serves a mutual benefit.
Yes. Isn't this a marvelous feature?
It isn't far off from my argument for an individualist society. The basis is on individuals volunteering to partake. But the question remains: in a socialist or socially-holocratic society, how are wages regulated? Will they be determined by some form of collective arbitration, or will they be determine by a worker's production? And if wages are regulated, how will you off-set the regulation in prices?
It's simple, people bid for jobs. The lowest qualified bid gets the job.
"Lowest qualified"? By what measure?
I'm not sure what SPECIFIC SYSTEMS you're trying to compare and contrast.
Decentralization of management is nothing new. Holocracy's distinction is in that it offers something sentimental. That is, providing workers with more of a "personal stake," for lack of a better term, by providing certain roles and responsibilities with about being micromanaged from the top. When I watched the video on Holocracy, there wasn't much said that I, for example, didn't learn when studying "Theory of the Firm" years back. Holocracy relies on the reason and self-awareness of its participants (e.g. not feud over assuming more significant roles, etc.) I don't necessarily oppose this, by the way, but I fail to grasp a significant distinction from other forms of decentralization. And it's also important to note that decentralization could be facilitated under Capitalism. So then I must ask: what would be the difference between holocracy under Capitalism and holocracy under Socialism?
