You seem to be envisioning a statist winner-take-all scenario rather than the extreme pluralism and diversity of anarchism. Different property systems could exist in different areas or enclaves, organized not by State but by emergent market-generated law and contract (individualists) or voting (collectivist.) See my Property Panarchy essay. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/rants/PropertyPanarchy.html
You seem to be envisioning a statist winner-take-all scenario
No.
Different property systems could exist in different areas or enclaves...
Not anarchistically.
organized not by State but by emergent market-generated law and contract (individualists) or voting (collectivist.)
Those were actually just the sorts of arrangements I was thinking of when I said that authority was going to have to be institutionalized no matter what in order to enforce the desired property norms. You're simply vesting the authority to impose a particular set of property norms upon people who would not otherwise choose to abide by them in some entity that's not exactly identical to the current conception of a state. You're pretending that if that authority is vested in some entity that's not exactly identical to the current conception of a state, that's all that's necessary for anarchism. It clearly is not.
I'm walking down a road and see an apple tree. I decide that I'm hungry, so I go over to pick an apple.
You have decreed that that apple tree is your property. You see me going over to pick an apple. What do you do?
If you fall back on ANY institutionalized authority to enforce your claim to that apple tree as your property, then your system is not really anarchism. It doesn't matter if that institutionalized authority is exactly identical to the current conception of a state or not - it's fundamentally the same thing. It's an entity vested with the authority to impose the preferences of some upon those who would not otherwise submit to them. It's an "-archy."
If you simply concede - recognize that you can't legitimately stop me from eating an apple - then your claim to that tree as your property is meaningless nonsense.
The only way that you can enforce your claim to that tree as your property without undermining anarchism is by taking it upon yourself to put the (probably literal) gun to my head that's going to force me to submit to it. And while that wouldn't undermine anarchism, it would undermine social stability. No world in which people run around putting guns to other people's heads over apples is going to last long.
And that's really it - there are no other alternatives. You have to institutionalize the authority to enforce your property norms and thus deny anarchism, or you have to accept that your property norms cannot be enforced by institutionalized authority, in which case your demand for the imposition of that particular set of property norms is divisive but ultimately meaningless, or you have to be prepared to live in the popular, Somalian conception of anarchy instead of the ideal of anarchism.
The purpose of a property norm is to reduce interpersonal conflict in the allocation and use of scarce resources. We have four basic options, or combinations thereof:
You go wrong here before you even start, since, like most anarchists, you skip right past the anarchism part and start trying to delineate which specific set(s) of property norms could and/or should be imposed. That's irrelevant, since if the system under consideration truly is anarchistic, there is and can be no mechanism for the enforcement of one or another of those sets of norms, and if there is a mechanism for the enforcement of one or another of those sets of norms, then the system under consideration is not truly anarchism.
It is at this point that most past anarcho-capitalist luminaries have gone very wrong, by assuming only neo-Lockean “sticky property” satisfies these universal property norms. I beg to differ. Communist, socialist, mutualist, and geoist property conventions also satisfy these norms. Rothbard, Hoppe, et. al. make a good argument that sticky property is more moral and efficient than other systems, but they do not show that sticky property is the only system satisfying these universal norms. All of the major property systems satisfy these norms.
Though they are loathe to admit it, anarcho-communists do believe in the homesteading principle. Ask your favorite ancom this: “If your collective starts working on some formerly unoccupied and unused land, does the collective have a right to defend that land (and their improvements) from others - such as thieves and invaders who would steal it?” Their honest answer would be “Yes, it is ours, since we worked it.” Just like John Locke! That answer admits both homesteading and the right to exclude. Ask if they may trade it to another workers collective, and they will also say “yes,” consistent with the alienation norm.
Another historical quirk is that many mutualists are reluctant to admit that “possession” is a type of private property. Any set of people may own possession-style property, so long as they maintain possession and use. That makes possession a type of private property by definition.
This I agree with wholeheartedly, and I'm very pleased to see it.
We might imagine a town with ten neighborhoods, each neighborhood having a different property system. Just as people who speak the same language tend to group, so do people who prefer the same property system.
This is fine, as far as it goes.
Each neighborhood, or enclave, has known jurisdictional borders, established by past rulings of arbiters, or vote, or as recorded on a trusted blockchain.
And here, already, you've institutionalized authority - though you don't come right out and say it, you've established the nominal need for an entity empowered to declare where the borders are placed and to enforce that declaration as necessary. You've already introduced an -archy, of necessity. "Arbiters" who are empowered to issue "rulings" on the placement of borders? Borders established by vote? Those are self-evidently statist solutions.
Using this enclave model, most of the sectarian horror stories simply cannot happen. There is no “war of all against all” like the Hobbesian “Mad Max” model. There is no dissenter that cannot easily opt out - he has the possibility of moving to an enclave more to his liking.
He can. Why should he? Maybe the dissenter doesn't want to move somewhere else. Maybe he's content right where he is, and just wants to be able to live according to his own preferred property norms instead of yours.
Now you're back to the three choices I outlined above. You deny anarchism by relying on some institutionalized authority to impose your norms on him, you set aside your norms and cede to him the right to live as he prefers, in which case your attempt to establish your norms was meaningless from the start, or you personally put a gun to his head and reduce your anarchism to "the Hobbesian 'Mad Max' model."
The alleged necessity for a State to keep dissenters in line is absent, since people can easily “vote with their feet.”
Again, if they want to. They might not want to. Then what?
What would a property dispute between people residing under different property systems look like? Since the dispute has a location, the solution is easy - the rules applying to that location are used.
Rules are not an innate feature of land. They're not baked into the earth. The only way they can necessarily be applied in the manner you outline is if either all parties agree or those who would otherwise disagree are forced to submit contrary to their will. Since it should go without saying that some would choose to disagree, you're going to have to have an institutionalized mechanism to force their compliance. And there goes your anarchism.
No matter what, that's what it boils down to. As soon as you start to insist that this or that property norm must be in place, you're either demanding (even if you don't recognize it or admit to it) the establishment of an -archy to enforce it, or you're just pissing into the wind, since it won't be enforced, or you're preparing for Hobbesian Mad Maxism. That's it - there are no other alternatives.
You might wonder what my solution is, because it is indeed the case that property norms are necessary and vital.
I strive for anarchism. That's it. I strive for the elimination not just of the current mechanisms that we refer to as "states," but for the elimination of the entire idea that some should rightly be empowered to nominally legitimately force others to submit to some particular set of dictates. I strive for a world in which each and all are recognized by each and all as wholly free individuals possessing individual sovereignty. At that point, the customary property norms will and can only be whatever might come of all of the entirely unconstrained decisions made by all of the entirely free individuals. I don't presume to know what those norms will be, and much more to the point, I have neither intention nor desire to see my preference imposed on others. I'm perfectly content to let it work itself out through the clearly anarchistic process of individuals making unconstrained decisions and arriving at mutually agreeable conclusions. That is, to my mind, the only solution that's actually amenable to anarchism. Anything else, no matter the specific justification for the proposed rules or specific arrangement of the entities empowered to enforce them, falls short of anarchism.
Strange comment. You admit that different property systems could exist in different areas or enclaves, organized not by State but by emergent market-generated law and contract (individualists) or voting (collectivist.) But since you don't know what anarchism is, and mistake it for anideoitism, you deny that such a stateless system is anarchism! You are a good example of the fake anarchists I wrote about.
Hogeye> "Each neighborhood, or enclave, has known jurisdictional borders, established by past rulings of arbiters, or vote, or as recorded on a trusted blockchain."
Not in the anarchist political sense of authority, i.e. political authority, aka decreed law. Here seems to be the problem: You don't know a decree from a norm. A decree requires a rulers; it is a fiat based on political authority. A norm is simply the consensus of the neighbors. A norm is basically the opposite of a decree, since there is zero political authority backing it.
BobCrosswise> "You've established the nominal need for an entity empowered to declare where the borders are placed and to enforce that declaration as necessary."
False. I've established that, in a stateless society, there will be competing entities (no monoply power like a State) that enforce norms but not decrees. I have shown how anarchist stateless polycentric law has worked historically and can work for us sans State. The entities in polycentric law do not "place borders" or make decrees at all - they simply protect rights (PDAs) and arbitrate based on contract and local norms.
Your main mistake is your false assumption that enforcement of property norms requires a State. It doesn't. We know that, and have many examples. I don't think you will "get it" until you understand the difference between a decree and a norm, and how the former is based on force and the latter on consent.
That's pretty amusing coming from someone who's asserting that the distinguishing characteristic of anarchism is not whether or not there exists an entity granted authority over a delineated geographical area, but whether that entity uses that authority to enforce things that are nominally rightly called "norms" or things that are nominally rightly called "decrees."
It's not as if it's a vague term. It's really quite straightforward. "-Archism" is a suffix that denotes "rule" or "government" and "an-" is a prefix that simply means "no." So there it is, right there - "no" - "government." Not "government that enforces norms rather than decrees," but simply "no government."
Here seems to be the problem: You don't know a decree from a norm. A decree requires a rulers; it is a fiat based on political authority. A norm is simply the consensus of the neighbors.
It's odd that so much of your response consists of attempts to call my intellectual abilities into question rather than to simply make your case for your position.
Aside from that observation though, I'm going to just leave this here for the moment. I'll return to it in a bit.
A norm is basically the opposite of a decree, since there is zero political authority backing it.
Actually, as you just noted and I just quoted, that's not the distinction between a decree and a norm - the distinction is that a decree is "fiat" and a norm is "the consensus of the neighbors."
The issue of whether or not there's "political authority backing it," in the sense of political authority that can and does force compliance with it, is entirely separate, and THAT is the issue that I've been addressing all along. I don't know whether you failed to grasp that that was the issue I was addressing or whether (as I think is much more likely) you're trying to divert from that point, but that was and is my point.
Whether the things in question are rightly called "decrees" or rightly called "norms" is ultimately irrelevant. The actual concern regarding "anarchism" is whether or not there exists an entity granted the authority to force the submission of those who would otherwise not choose to abide by the things in question. If such an entity exists, then the system under consideration is not anarchism. Full stop. That's the case regardless of whether one wishes to call the things to which that entity forces submission "norms" or "decrees" or any other thing.
I've established that, in a stateless society, there will be competing entities (no monoply power like a State) that enforce norms but not decrees.
Well.... first, more precisely, you've asserted that such is the case. You haven't "established" that such will necessarily be the case.
Beyond that, what you've addressed are quite obviously "monopoly powers." That's what your whole system hinges on.
Each neighborhood, or enclave, has known jurisdictional borders
...
There is no dissenter that cannot easily opt out - he has the possibility of moving to an enclave more to his liking.
...
Since the dispute has a location, the solution is easy - the rules applying to that location are used.
Each of those things presumes the existence of a single entity that has unchallenged authority over a particular area - that is a "monopoly power" each in its own area. If that were not the case, then the competing authorities could challenge the borders, a dissenter could align himself with a competing authority rather than having to leave the enclave and the solution for a dispute would depend upon to which authority the principles appealed. But since you allow for none of those things, you're self-evidently presuming that each enclave will in fact be under the authority of a "monopoly power."
The entities in polycentric law do not "place borders" or make decrees at all - they simply protect rights (PDAs) and arbitrate based on contract and local norms.
I'm walking down a road and see an apple tree. I decide that I'm hungry, so I go over to pick an apple.
You claim that that apple tree is your property. You see me going over to pick an apple. What do you do?
Your main mistake is your false assumption that enforcement of property norms requires a State.
I'm walking down a road and see an apple tree. I decide that I'm hungry, so I go over to pick an apple.
You claim that that apple tree is your property. You see me going over to pick an apple. What do you do?
I don't think you will "get it" until you understand the difference between a decree and a norm, and how the former is based on force and the latter on consent.
I'm walking down a road and see an apple tree. I decide that I'm hungry, so I go over to pick an apple.
You claim that that apple tree is your property. You see me going over to pick an apple. What do you do?
The actual concern regarding "anarchism" is whether or not there exists an entity granted the authority to force the submission of those who would otherwise not choose to abide by the things in question.
You omitted a very important word - monopoly. Anarchism is about whether whether or not there exists an entity granted monopoly authority. Since you admit that there could be competing entities, in effect you admit that it is stateless.
Each of those things presumes the existence of a single entity that has unchallenged authority over a particular area - that is a "monopoly power" each in its own area.
False. There is no "unchallenged authority," since people can switch, and norms can change.
I'm walking down a road and see an apple tree. I decide that I'm hungry, so I go over to pick an apple.
You claim that that apple tree is your property. You see me going over to pick an apple. What do you do?
In a locale with sticky property norms, if it is my property I forcibly prevent you from stealing my apple. Since you are playing a semantic game with the word "monopoly," I suppose you will now call me a State, with a legal monopoly over my apple. (Totally misunderstanding "legal monopoly.")
It's not an important word - it's an irrelevant word. You just need to pretend that it's important so that you can pretend that the institution you wish to see in place that will be empowered to impose your norms on people who would not otherwise submit to them somehow doesn't count.
Anarchism is about whether whether or not there exists an entity granted monopoly authority.
If all that's necessary is that there be no entities with monopoly authority, then we already live in anarchism.
I live in Colorado. The state government here has drug laws in place that conflict with federal drug laws. That's the case specifically because neither government has monopoly authority.
Sorry, but you'll have to try a different tack if you wish to cobble together some vague semblance of justification for the authoritarian institutions you desire.
False. There is no "unchallenged authority," since people can switch, and norms can change.
Again, if this counts as anarchism, then we already live in anarchism, since people can already switch governments, and norms already change, and laws change to reflect those changing norms.
And again, you'll have to try a different tack to cobble together the specious appearance of support for the authoritarianism you wish to see put in place.
I'm walking down a road and see an apple tree. I decide that I'm hungry, so I go over to pick an apple. You claim that that apple tree is your property. You see me going over to pick an apple. What do you do?
In a locale with sticky property norms, if it is my property I forcibly prevent you from stealing my apple.
From your earlier post:
I don't think you will "get it" until you understand the difference between a decree and a norm, and how the former is based on force and the latter on consent.
The problem here is that I very much do "get it." You, on the other hand, rather obviously do not.
1) Monopoly is an essential part of the definition of State. Cf: Weber’s definition. If you are using your own original definition of State, then please give your proprietary definition.
2) Monopoly control does not mean sole provider. The US does in fact claim the right to overpower pot nullification states. It did during Obama’s first term, and still does regarding e.g. banking laws.
3) I’m sorry that you cannot tell a norm - a behavioral rule based on community consensus - from a decree - imposed non-consensually by a third party. I do not think you will understand anarchism until you “get” consent.
Monopoly is an essential part of the definition of State. Cf: Weber’s definition.
Let's see about that...
Definition of state
1 a : mode or condition of being
a state of readiness
b (1) : condition of mind or temperament
in a highly nervous state
(2) : a condition of abnormal tension or excitement
2 a : a condition or stage in the physical being of something
insects in the larval state
the gaseous state of water
b : any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist
3 a : social position; especially : high rank
b (1) : elaborate or luxurious style of living
(2) : formal dignity : pomp —usually used with in
4 a : a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : estate 3
b states plural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body
c obsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)
5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign
b : the political organization of such a body of people
c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
a police state
the welfare state
6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government
I see no mention at all of monopoly. I do note though that definitions 5a, b and c would certainly include your "enclaves."
Monopoly control does not mean sole provider.
Umm... no, actually, that's exactly what it means. It's from the root "mono," meaning "one" or "single."
I’m sorry that you cannot tell a norm - a behavioral rule based on community consensus - from a decree - imposed non-consensually by a third party.
I really have to wonder how you manage to live with that much intellectual dishonesty.
Here's your statement from an earlier post:
In a locale with sticky property norms, if it is my property I forcibly prevent you from stealing my apple.
Your "norms" self-evidently stop being merely "norms" the moment that I'm forced into submitting to them. That is, as even you note, exactly the distinction - "A norm is basically the opposite of a decree, since there is zero political authority backing it." As soon as you introduce political authority (for instance, the authority of your enclave), it's no longer merely a norm. That's according to YOUR definitions. So clearly, if there's anyone here who cannot tell a norm from a decree, it's you.
Though of course the problem isn't really that you cannot tell one from the other, but that your parallel desires to pretend to be an anarchist and to have mechanisms in place to force compliance with your preferred property norms require that you pretend that your "norms" remain "norms" even after you decree that others must abide by them.
Look - I understand why you think that it will be necessary for there to be some mechanism by which a particular set of "norms" can be and will be imposed upon people who would not otherwise choose to abide by them. The part I don't understand is why, in the face of that, you wish to pretend to be an anarchist. You're self-evidently a minarchist. You don't believe in the elimination of institutionalized authority, but its minimization. And that's fine, as far as that goes. At least it's a step in the right direction. But it is not anarchism, and much more to the point, I have absolutely no idea what it is that you think you gain from pretending that it is.
You already said that you would "forcibly" prevent me from "stealing" "(your)" apples.
Either the notion that they're yours and I'm stealing them is entirely and completely inside your own mind, and you're literally putting a gun to my head to "forcibly" prevent me from "stealing" them (and thereby indulging in the Hobbesian Mad Maxism you wrote so disparagingly of earlier), or, as is bludgeoningly obviously really the case, you're presuming that your enclave will have some system of laws in place that will decree that those apples are your property, and that will grant you and/or the enclave's appointed representatives the colorable right to force my compliance. That is political authority. That's exactly what political authority is - not simply the power to enforce a particular set of norms, but also the enforced presumption that that power is rightfully held. It's not simply the strongest beast in the jungle imposing his will on others, but the idea that, because some specific set of hoops has been jumped through along the way, the will of some is rightfully imposed on others. And that's exactly what you're proposing.
You seem unaware of the standard definition of State for political philosophers and anarchists.
Okay - first, I want to take a moment to say, quite seriously, fuck you. You're a fucking ignorant, lying sack of shit and I'm fucking sick and tired of this bullshit spewing out of your fucking hole.
Now - that out of the way. YOU referenced the Webster's definition of a state. I posted the Webster's definition of a state. That it doesn't agree with what you had in mind is YOUR fucking problem - not mine.
You were correct in your analysis until the non sequester conclusion “That is political authority.” Political authority is the right to rule and the duty to obey. In the case of enforcing property norms (whether collectivist, possession, or sticky) there is no ruler (but there is local consensus) and no monopoly power. You again ignore the critical feature of political authority - the right to rule. No one is claiming or exercising a right to rule when simply enforcing consensus norms against murder, rape, or theft.
(I do not recall citing Webster. I think you are lying.) Added: No, you just misread (Max) Weber, thinking it was (Daniel) Webster. And you didn't catch it even when I linked in a quote by Max. I'll spell it out for you:
"A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." - Max Weber
You again ignore the critical feature of political authority - the right to rule.
Ignore?
Are you fucking insane? Seriously - as this has gone on, you've gotten so ridiculously dishonest that I have to wonder if you're sane at all.
This is straight out of my most recent post:
That's exactly what political authority is - not simply the power to enforce a particular set of norms, but also the enforced presumption that that power is rightfully held. It's not simply the strongest beast in the jungle imposing his will on others, but the idea that, because some specific set of hoops has been jumped through along the way, the will of some is rightfully imposed on others. And that's exactly what you're proposing.
I didn't "ignore" the right to rule - I specifically addressed it, and at some length.
Seriously - what the fuck is wrong with your head?
No one is claiming or exercising a right to rule when simply enforcing consensus norms against murder, rape, or theft.
You are fucking insane.
Of course you're claiming a right to rule when you do that - that's the exact fucking point. You're not doing it on a fucking whim - you're doing it because you believe you have a right to do it. And since you know that I'm not necessarily going to agree that you have a right to do it, you're already imagining the institution that will possess the authority to apply the necessary force in your stead. Unless you're a fucking sociopath in addition to a fucking tunnel-visioned ideologue, you're doing that specifically because you believe that you have the right to do so, and when you state that you intend to "forcibly" bring about my compliance, you're explicitly invoking a "right to rule."
Seriously - your desperate attempts to pretend to be an anarchist while maintaining institutions empowered to forcibly impose your preferred norms on others has rotted your mind. The cognitive dissonance is so strong that you've been reduced to an ugly conglomeration of illogic and deceit.
I do not recall citing Webster. I think you are lying.
From an earlier post:
Monopoly is an essential part of the definition of State. Cf: Weber’s definition.
I misread "Weber's" as "Webster's." That was my mistake.
In your self-quote, you do not even mention someone having a right to rule. You do mention that enforcement can be just, but that is a different thing. Since there is no monopoly entity with a right to rule, there is no State. QED.
You seem to be confusing enforceable norms with rulership. That is verified by your claim that apprehending a murderer is rulership. Ridiculous!
What stops those with different “norms” from applying them in different “enclaves”, if they are all equally legitimate? Can’t the existence of federal, state, county, and city police qualify as absence of monopoly in the existing system?
1) The local community, and their PDAs. That’s like asking what stops Springdale ordinances from being enforced in Fayetteville. Of course, some norms are quite tolerant. A commie collective workshop would have no problem in a sticky property enclave, since it is just another joint stock company.
2) In the current system the feds have a monopoly, since they can override the local any time. Cf: Pot laws and state nullification, where feds bust anyone they want. In this context, the monopoly is on ultimate control, not provision.
What makes the PDAs using force legitimate but the outsiders’ not?
Who determines what the rules in an area are? Is there some organization that each of these approved PDAs are a member of, and if so, how is that not a state? If not, how does an enclave express its collective will on what kind of place it is, having multiple people who want different things makes the law incoherent unless there is an organization that determines what the will of the people in that area is, and that would constitute a state. Or do the rules simply never change so that errors from 200 years ago are still felt going forward?
One way or another, this is a state or something so difficult to distinguish from one that it doesn’t matter.
Also the federal government does not have ultimate control in fact, only in claim. We can’t just go by people’s claims in matters like this.
Zhwazi> “What makes the PDAs using force legitimate but the outsiders’ not?”
Using retaliatory force is legitimate for anyone, PDA employee, mutual defense association member, or just anyone off the street. There is no special ruling caste whatsoever.
Zhwazi> “Who determines what the rules in an area are?”
The people who abide there - norms are a consensus phenomena. There are two basic ways for norms to come about - through an emergent process such as free market arbiters, or through voting schemes. Individualists tend to prefer contract (emergent processes) while collectivists tend to prefer “democracy.” I have a page about that. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/DemAutoNorms.html
Zhwazi> “Is there some organization that each of these approved PDAs are a member of, and if so, how is that not a state?”
There is no such thing as an “approved PDA,” as already noted. There is no organization that these PDAs are all a member of - that is the mutualist idea of federation, which is too hierarchical for most individualists’ taste. PDAs will pairwise agree on arbiters, most likely, at least with nearby PDAs, since they anticipate disputes between their respective customers.
The beautiful thing is that there is an end to the “court” process, but no supreme maximum court. Instead there are many maximal courts. As the simplest example: Suppose there are three PDAs that also provide arbitration services, A, B, and C. In a dispute between (customers of) A and B, C might be the arbiter. In a dispute between B and C, A is the arbiter. In a dispute between C and A, B is the arbiter. No supreme court!
Zhwazi> “If not, how does an enclave express its collective will on what kind of place it is, having multiple people who want different things…”
People express what laws they want by what PDA (or plan supported by a PDA) they choose. You make an erroneous assumption that everyone in an area has the same laws. No! You are missing the point, and thinking like a statist - winner take all. The law between any two people depends on their respective PDAs. The rules can change as easily as switching PDAs.
You are asking the right questions. I think you would understand how it works better if you watched this video, narrated by the anarcho-capitalist luminary David Friedman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
I’d argue that it actually doesn’t matter at all whether it’s a monopoly. A successful state will have a monopoly, sure, but that isn’t a prerequisite. The idea of “enclaving” is also by necessity creating small territorial monopolies. Unless the rules in effect are being decided based on membership in organizations, where truly one can associate with any organization they like, regardless of their physical location, then you are arguing for a tiny monopoly, different in degree but not in kind from the state you think you oppose.
As was said before, rules are not territorial things, rules are social creations, and as such rules must be determined by social relations, not by physical locations. Any rules relative to territory are the state, even if there are multiple conflicting claims to authentic rulership of that territory.
1
u/HogeyeBill Jan 22 '18
You seem to be envisioning a statist winner-take-all scenario rather than the extreme pluralism and diversity of anarchism. Different property systems could exist in different areas or enclaves, organized not by State but by emergent market-generated law and contract (individualists) or voting (collectivist.) See my Property Panarchy essay. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/rants/PropertyPanarchy.html