: Lets say there are two towns, living in a collectivist direct democracy world. We shall call them C1 and C2. Both C1 and C2 has collective ownership of a number of materials.
Well,f or a start they wouldn't have 'ownership', both communes would have an equal share of teh worlds resources, here they would only have direct management of a number of resources in their locale.
: The people of C2 have democratically decided that C1 should help them out by either giving them some produce or by 'democratically' rehousing some of the C1 producers to C2. C1 people decide that this is not in the collective democratic interest of C1.
C2 cannot make a democratic decision for C1, they can only resolve to ask C1 for help. Basic principle of democracy here, you don't vote for others to do something.
: The people of C2 are facing disease and starvation. C1 has *not* caused this in any way. C1 can help out but at a cost of reducing their standard of living to a basic shelter and food only level.
Assuming these are the only two communes in the world, to simplify the situation, then they should share with these people, the fruits of their common labour. C1 does not *own* its resources, merely it uses them. Of course, C1 would be entityled to shout at C2 and tell them to get their act together. Remember, niether commmune is a restricted economy, they are both part of the same economy, the world economy.
: Other answers?
I think the fundamental error of this example is to see tehtwo communes as seperate, almost like nations with their own boundaries, the reality is that both would be part of the same productive system, and so its in both interests to produce as well as possible, if C2 is in dire need, C1 could send people to help produce more, etc.