the anarchist solution is to abolish property, meaning picking the fruit tree clean wouldn’t actually give you anything besides a bunch of rotting fruit and others will probably get angry and stop giving you the stuff they make
I get the idea: if no one exclusively owns anything, then no one needs to hoard anything, and everyone gets what they need.
Unfortunately, we do not yet live in a post-scarcity society. There needs to be a way to both ensure that limited resources are distributed appropriately (by whatever metric) AND to ensure that someone doesn’t take more even when they are not acting in their own best interest.
To continue the apples analogy, it’s all fine and well to say that no one owns the apples so anyone can eat one whenever they want. In theory, no one would eat more than they can, so there would be enough to go around. But how do you handle someone who decides they want to control people by controlling the apples? If they take all the apples, then people will have to go to him if they want an apple, and they will have to pay some price for it (and I don’t mean cash). What is the mechanism to ensure that doesn’t happen? Or, what is the mechanism to prevent someone from burning down all the apple trees because they don’t like apples or because they want someone else to not have apples?
The idea that no one owns anything does not stop someone with an irrational mindset or with a mindset to force their will on others.
the anarchist solution is to abolish property, meaning picking the fruit tree clean wouldn’t actually give you anything besides a bunch of rotting fruit and others will probably get angry and stop giving you the stuff they make
Then no one has fruit. There is a non-zero percent of the population who would pick the trees clean for that reason alone.
Anarchy, like capitalism, works best when all the actors are rational. People are not rational.
this isn’t a “people will manage the commons” argument; “that reason” is property itself which anarchism wants to abolish
I get the idea: if no one exclusively owns anything, then no one needs to hoard anything, and everyone gets what they need.
Unfortunately, we do not yet live in a post-scarcity society. There needs to be a way to both ensure that limited resources are distributed appropriately (by whatever metric) AND to ensure that someone doesn’t take more even when they are not acting in their own best interest.
To continue the apples analogy, it’s all fine and well to say that no one owns the apples so anyone can eat one whenever they want. In theory, no one would eat more than they can, so there would be enough to go around. But how do you handle someone who decides they want to control people by controlling the apples? If they take all the apples, then people will have to go to him if they want an apple, and they will have to pay some price for it (and I don’t mean cash). What is the mechanism to ensure that doesn’t happen? Or, what is the mechanism to prevent someone from burning down all the apple trees because they don’t like apples or because they want someone else to not have apples?
The idea that no one owns anything does not stop someone with an irrational mindset or with a mindset to force their will on others.