Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

I posted the question in reaction to this post zasterguava made:

[ QUOTE ]
But unlike the statist socialists of his time, Proudhon's solution is not to give each person an equal amount of property, but to deny the validity of legal property in natural resources altogether.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was somehow related to the OP. When I heard this it made me consider what would happen to me if I constructed some sort of shelter on a piece of land and put locks on the doors so I could sleep withouth worring about someone coming in and messing with me. According to the above statement, this would not be considered acceptable because I have no authority to deny people access to the property my shelter is built on. I did not like the implications that would have for such a society, which is why I asked the question because there is a good chance I misunderstood what was being said.

[ QUOTE ]
You are missing the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood that Chomsky didn't want to get into specifics because he thinks it's too complicated to get very specific. I think that if you are talking about the ideals or tennants or whatever that a particular societal structure is based upon then it is possible to predict implications that would have for the society. I think one particular implication for this type of society would be that it would not tolerate locks or fences being constructed.

I understand that this was rather unimportant to the overall discussion at hand, but I was curious. If it was inappropriate or just retarded, that's cool just let me know.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Chomsky's view isn't exactly unique. Many anarchists hold the notion that private property rights can't exist in a voluntarist society and propose syndicate solutions instead.

And there is no need to go overboard on the Cambodia thing either. Yes he deserves criticism for it because he made blunders, but from all his writings and speeches it is also clear this is not a man who in any way supports genocide.

And besides everybody deserves criticism for the Cambodia incident. Entire world sat on their asses and watched and only Vietnam did something.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Been listening to some Salerno lectures, Boro? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Been listening to some Salerno lectures, Boro? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He repeatedly advocates an anarchy where there are basically no rules or property at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

And the lock business. Jesus, he was drunk on pretend beer, in a conversation that never occurred. Do you have any better evidence of his views?



[/ QUOTE ]


Yes I would recommend you read his work for evidence of this view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is another way of saying that YOU don't have the evidence. Can you even specify which work this would appear in, much less an actual quote?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke , perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky, within a few lines of praising rationality makes an argument based entirely on emotion. There is not a point for him to make rationally here though because history totally destroys his position. Where are these potentates of capitalism? The Fords, Gates and Hills of capitalism built their empires by paying their employees more, by making products more freely available to those that wanted them, by making so many things that people want and need. And what do these potentates do with their vast sums of wealth? They give it away. Heartless bastards dragging peasants behind their carts for fun all of em.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

People only like Chomsky because of his name. They think 'Noam Chomsky' sounds sophisticated. I doubt anyone would care what he said if his name was John Brown.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Anarcho-syndicalism is based on principles of equality & freedom. Anarcho-capitalism is based on principles of property rights & freedom.

There really isn't much more to it than that. Of course we can debate these premises endlessly, but all in all we'll boil down to difference in opinion on these basic premises.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Anarcho-syndicalism is based on principles of equality & freedom. Anarcho-capitalism is based on principles of property rights & freedom.

There really isn't much more to it than that. Of course we can debate these premises endlessly, but all in all we'll boil down to difference in opinion on these basic premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the former cannot sustain a modern advanced civilization based on a high degree of specialization and the division of labor, and the latter can. So unless you want 95% of the world's population to die and the rest live at a Stone Age level of subsistence, you are pretty much forced to discard the "egalitarian" principle.

Also, anarcho-capitalism is in fact based on equality. It's just not based on equality of outcome, but rather a universalizable ethic. The two are incompatable.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Anarcho-syndicalism is based on principles of equality & freedom. Anarcho-capitalism is based on principles of property rights & freedom.

There really isn't much more to it than that. Of course we can debate these premises endlessly, but all in all we'll boil down to difference in opinion on these basic premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the former cannot sustain a modern advanced civilization based on a high degree of specialization and the division of labor, and the latter can. So unless you want 95% of the world's population to die and the rest live at a Stone Age level of subsistence, you are pretty much forced to discard the "egalitarian" principle.

Also, anarcho-capitalism is in fact based on equality. It's just not based on equality of outcome, but rather a universalizable ethic. The two are incompatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could have specified the equality, but I didn't really see the need. Equality of opportunity and outcome for the individual is what most people would see as equality anyway.

Anyhow...semantics is boring. Equality is MORE important to AS than AC, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

As for working, I think AS can work nicely for smaller entities but its pretty far fetched for larger ones.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Anarchosocialism works great for small bands living at a Stone Age level of subsistance.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchosocialism works great for small bands living at a Stone Age level of subsistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are underestimating it, all you really need is a group that has the capacity to agree and compromise (hence my point on size) - AS does allow for politics and supports democratic process so compromise is fine.

But anyway I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist so I don't really find it dreadfully interesting to debate on behalf of it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Anarchosyndicalism != anarchosocialism. Anarchosyndicalism, if it were structured to work at all, would simply be a subset of anarchocapitalism.

True anarchosocialism, specifically a social norm excluding the private ownership of the means of production (land, capital goods, one's own body and labor) or even some subset thereof is *litterally* only possible under extremely primitive tribal conditions, because the number of possible alternative uses for scarce resources grows exponentially with population and technological complexity. Without recourse to a price system in the factors of production, which can only exist under a regime of private property in the factors of production, there is no possibility of economic calculation. There is no way to decide what should be produced or how, no way to know if resources are being allocated to more highly valued uses or being wasted.

Lenin tried this, *real* socialism (although not anarchosocialism, clearly), no private property in the factors of production, no prices, no economic calculation, only central planning, in 1917, during his implementation of so-called "War Communism." By 1921 he had to relent and allow a return to limited private property and economic calculation because so little was being produced that people were literally tearing apart their homes for firewood. There was famine. The factories had been stripped of machinery, which was sold on the black market for food. There was a mass exodus from the cities to the countryside, where people lived off of hunting and gathering, scavenging, and banditry. A huge chunk of the country's capital stock was wiped out in just 4 years because of socialism.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Oh yeah, and 10 million people died.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Well I was talking about anarcho-syndicalism all along. It is after all the system Chomsky is a proponent for. I think you were the one mentioning anarcho-socialism.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Well, like I said, if anarchosyndicalism could work at all it would have to be structured in such a way that essentially just makes it anarchocapitalism. I.e., sure the workers could own the factors of production, but they would have to own salable shares. Which is just capitalism. Otherwise you run right back into the problems of socialism.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

I still hate Chomsky, but love that he recognizes that anarchism is utopian and impossible in the real world.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Anarcho-syndicalists vehemently opposes ownership of production (both state and private) and capitalism, so I don't think the shares thingy would fly by very well for them.

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Doesn't sound like it.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, and 10 million people died.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a bit of a strawman attacking Chomsky for something he said in 1970.

AFAIK he has changed his whole stance quite radically since then.

Also the idea that all "stone age" collectives live at subsistence is just a artifact from western colonial imperialism.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchosocialism works great for small bands living at a Stone Age level of subsistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it works fine so long as they can (and do) exile those who don't believe in it. Obviously it's impossible to have the entire planet under it. Ultimately though, they'll have to have their own land which they own as a group and they'll have to respect the property rights of those who live outside of that land.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, and 10 million people died.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a bit of a strawman attacking Chomsky for something he said in 1970.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? The ten million people died comment was regarding war communism in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1921.

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK he has changed his whole stance quite radically since then.

Also the idea that all "stone age" collectives live at subsistence is just a artifact from western colonial imperialism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that "all stone age collective live at subsistence" (by which I presume you imply bare subsistence). I said that you can have socialism if you wanted to live at a stone age level of subsistence.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He repeatedly advocates an anarchy where there are basically no rules or property at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

And the lock business. Jesus, he was drunk on pretend beer, in a conversation that never occurred. Do you have any better evidence of his views?



[/ QUOTE ]


Yes I would recommend you read his work for evidence of this view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is another way of saying that YOU don't have the evidence. Can you even specify which work this would appear in, much less an actual quote?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can continue to try and frame this to make me look ignorant if you like. I have read enough Chomsky to understand his beliefs. From this it is very clear to me that he is a VERY well spoken buffoon. I have no desire to reread useless claptrap in order to find a quote. If you think that makes me intellectually lazy it is simply because there is no incentive for me to do anything more than I have to [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]

The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky, within a few lines of praising rationality makes an argument based entirely on emotion. There is not a point for him to make rationally here though because history totally destroys his position. Where are these potentates of capitalism? The Fords, Gates and Hills of capitalism built their empires by paying their employees more, by making products more freely available to those that wanted them, by making so many things that people want and need. And what do these potentates do with their vast sums of wealth? They give it away. Heartless bastards dragging peasants behind their carts for fun all of em.

[/ QUOTE ]

none of these examples work; they did not have a 'free contract' over their workers.

And to others suggesting that Chomsky against private property; there are many anarchist of the left wing tradition that support the right to property just with limitations.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]


none of these examples work; they did not have a 'free contract' over their workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of "free contract" between

[/ QUOTE ]

unintentional?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky, within a few lines of praising rationality makes an argument based entirely on emotion. There is not a point for him to make rationally here though because history totally destroys his position. Where are these potentates of capitalism? The Fords, Gates and Hills of capitalism built their empires by paying their employees more, by making products more freely available to those that wanted them, by making so many things that people want and need. And what do these potentates do with their vast sums of wealth? They give it away. Heartless bastards dragging peasants behind their carts for fun all of em.

[/ QUOTE ]

none of these examples work; they did not have a 'free contract' over their workers.

And to others suggesting that Chomsky against private property; there are many anarchist of the left wing tradition that support the right to property just with limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What limitations? Who enforces them? It doesn't sound like they are anarchists.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky, within a few lines of praising rationality makes an argument based entirely on emotion. There is not a point for him to make rationally here though because history totally destroys his position. Where are these potentates of capitalism? The Fords, Gates and Hills of capitalism built their empires by paying their employees more, by making products more freely available to those that wanted them, by making so many things that people want and need. And what do these potentates do with their vast sums of wealth? They give it away. Heartless bastards dragging peasants behind their carts for fun all of em.

[/ QUOTE ]

none of these examples work; they did not have a 'free contract' over their workers.

And to others suggesting that Chomsky against private property; there are many anarchist of the left wing tradition that support the right to property just with limitations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What limitations? Who enforces them? It doesn't sound like they are anarchists.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, its a common misconception that anarchism means mayhem and chaos where no rules would be followed.

may I ask what it is that stops you from going into your neighbours house, sleeping in their bed and pooping on their kitchen floor? Is it your fear of state legislature and your aknowledgement of property rights?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What limitations? Who enforces them? It doesn't sound like they are anarchists.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, its a common misconception that anarchism means mayhem and chaos where no rules would be followed.

may I ask what it is that stops you from going into your neighbours house, sleeping in their bed and pooping on their kitchen floor? Is it your fear of state legislature and your aknowledgement of property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know how you would define a property right.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Anarcho-syndicalism is based on principles of equality & freedom. Anarcho-capitalism is based on principles of property rights & freedom.

There really isn't much more to it than that. Of course we can debate these premises endlessly, but all in all we'll boil down to difference in opinion on these basic premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the former cannot sustain a modern advanced civilization based on a high degree of specialization and the division of labor, and the latter can. So unless you want 95% of the world's population to die and the rest live at a Stone Age level of subsistence, you are pretty much forced to discard the "egalitarian" principle.

Also, anarcho-capitalism is in fact based on equality. It's just not based on equality of outcome, but rather a universalizable ethic. The two are incompatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's convenient that such bombastic claims can be made without batting an eye.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyhow...semantics is boring. Equality is MORE important to AS than AC, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equality of what?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Nobody ever claimed that a free market society would be "free from coercion". There would be theft, murder, rape, and fraud, i.e. coercion. It is simply that a free market society would be based on a social norm of libertarian ethics, i.e. that the initiation of force is bad. You can certainly use force to defend one's life, liberty, and proprty. Duh.

It is worth noting that this is pretty much the ethic that is shared by most people *right now*: don't harm other people, and don't take their stuff. It is only the widespread crazy belief that we need a special caste of people who are allowed, nay, required to commit crimes, like theft, kidnapping, mass murder, etc. lest society plunge into chaos, that allows the state to exist. Statism is a crazy, violent religion that people are raised into from the time they are 5 years old by the state's acolytes, and that religion tells people that it's ok if a distant bureaucracy does for them what would be criminal for them to do themselves, while also pacifying them to the state's predations upon them.

Being an anarchocapitalist amongst kooks like you is like being an atheist living in a country deep in the grip of voodoo. All around me I see people believing in evil spirits and threatening hexes and attempting to remedy these with insane magical gewgaws and useless rituals.

As for who enforces your property rights, you do, or your designated agents. Just like you do now, in the vast majority of cases, since the state does literally almost nothing to actually enforce property rights.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody ever claimed that a free market society would be "free from coercion". There would be theft, murder, rape, and fraud, i.e. coercion. It is simply that a free market society would be based on a social norm of libertarian ethics, i.e. that the initiation of force is bad. You can certainly use force to defend one's life, liberty, and proprty. Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have yet to see how a declaration of rights is anything but an implicit initiation of force. Rights without force mean nothing. You say you have a right to property and to its defense, but this is merely based on your moral outlook.

[ QUOTE ]
It is worth noting that this is pretty much the ethic that is shared by most people *right now*: don't harm other people, and don't take their stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that it is fair game to tell everyone else that it's wrong to force their morality on others, but you want to force your morality upon others because most people already agree? I'm glad we've covered the hypocrisy in both the moral and democratic arenas already.

[ QUOTE ]

Being an anarchocapitalist amongst kooks like you is like being an atheist living in a country deep in the grip of voodoo. All around me I see people believing in evil spirits and threatening hexes and attempting to remedy these with insane magical gewgaws and useless rituals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you come off like this, and fly off the handle whenever I make even a single insulting comment in any of my posts.

Unlike you, I make no claim to knowing the perfect government or social system. I'm a lot more interested in how we can improve what we do have, rather than make theoretical claims about motivation, incentive, happiness and the such that lead to oversimplified, unrealistic models being held as gospel.

My only real hope for humanity is that we are not so simple...

[ QUOTE ]

As for who enforces your property rights, you do, or your designated agents. Just like you do now, in the vast majority of cases, since the state does literally almost nothing to actually enforce property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically, what you are saying is that you leave it to people to enforce their own property rights. Almost making the whole notion of invoking some "voodoo" right unnecessary. Fascinating, do tell.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you preface it with, "to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion," you imply that you already know the answer, which means you're not asking a real question.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Being an anarchocapitalist amongst kooks like you is like being an atheist living in a country deep in the grip of voodoo. All around me I see people believing in evil spirits and threatening hexes and attempting to remedy these with insane magical gewgaws and useless rituals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you come off like this, and fly off the handle whenever I make even a single insulting comment in any of my posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but he's using retalitory insults, not initiated insults. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you preface it with, "to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion," you imply that you already know the answer, which means you're not asking a real question.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense, it merely limits the group he wants an opinion from so that their position and his responses can be clearly defined.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you preface it with, "to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion," you imply that you already know the answer, which means you're not asking a real question.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense, it merely limits the group he wants an opinion from so that their position and his responses can be clearly defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it clearly implies that he thinks such a position is foolish and that he isn't really interested in learning. If he had simply said "A serious question for ACists" instead, it would have been a simple question of the type you describe, but by making it "those who think that AC is completely free from coercion, he's turning that question into an attack.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion:

Who enforces property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not this canard again.

Don't you even TRY to understand ANYTHING about the things you claim are wrong before dismissing and attacking them? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking questions is how one goes about understanding things.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you preface it with, "to those who think that AC is completely free from coercion," you imply that you already know the answer, which means you're not asking a real question.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question was poorly worded. I didn't mean to imply that ACists believed that there would be no coercion, but merely that their "system" of property rights was somehow devoid of implicit "coercion". And yes, I believe that to be the case. I ask a question to understand how I might be mistaken.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
My question was poorly worded. I didn't mean to imply that ACists believed that there would be no coercion, but merely that their "system" of property rights was somehow devoid of implicit "coercion". And yes, I believe that to be the case. I ask a question to understand how I might be mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there isnt really an objective reason why we should have property rights, but what would you put in its place. I cant think if any other system of property that is theoretically consistant. If no property rights then what?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

An ACist society would certainly not be coercion and crime free, but what it would do was eliminate the biggest coercive and criminal organization known to anyone: the federal government.