: 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).
And people accuse me of being a hopeless idealist! Although, respecting fellow citizens, a bit like respecting their...property!
: Erm, free access ot the goods of society.
And as the goods have to be made this means free access to other peoples time, to their lives. What force is going to stop hording of 'free' goods, bribery, blackmail, extortion and the growth of powermongers in its disposal? There would need to be a system of law.
: 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?'
More like "ive made this chair...shhh, dont let the spokesmen see it - they want if for poor sally, I'll just swap it for that wool ok? and keep quiet about it" - You know thats what i meant. (and its fun making up pretend conversations to illustrate!)
: We'd make sure tehre were enough houss for all.
By having this 'free access' to the time, ie a proportion of life, of the people who would build them?
: 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.
Which is fine, were it so easy. What if the builders got together (a union no less!) and said no, we do a great service and we want a greater say in what goes on, or we want a greater proportion of the communal pot of goods?
: Which isn't all that impossible, its called comprimise.
And its compromise of self interest which will be a *must* have for any successful socialist society - especially one with diverse people.