: There *has* to be a right to *use* property (or it would just lie there). That right can exist only with people, either the owner (because he made it, traded it etc) or by another means.
Well, since everyone would own everything, the only 'mechanism' would have to be respecting your fellow citizens, and being polite in usage. (i.e. don't take someone elses toothbrush. 'Sides, its unhygenic).
: What other means?
Erm, free access ot the goods of society.
: And ofcourse there will be the prolific "capitalist acts between consenting adults" where those who dont agree with the various ways in which the right to use property is being decided venture forth outside of the 'rules'.
Erm, yeah, I'd let teh nutters go round exchanging for things:
'No Bob, its yours, just take it'
'No, Damnit, accept by $5 bill for it.'
'Oh, OK, suit yourself, but what am I gonna do with it?'
: The same feeling will be felt by anyone who 'lost the vote' in direct democracy or got the shaft in statist socialism - except this time the very people who made the house possible could be voted into not being able to use the property ("oh but mr builder, young sally and her children should have it, your not needy enough yet") and get peeved.
We'd make sure tehre were enough houss for all. House production would be, and is a communal effort, and they would be built to fit a need, and this building would only be with the explicit agreement of teh builders.
: And the only way to aviod the above is for all (or the overwhelming majority) of poeple to be always in agreement with their democratically alloted life.
Which isn't all that impossible, its called comprimise.