[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Serious question:

Would locks/fences be illegal in this type of society?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point. Chomsky refuses to provide such a detailed imagining, cuz things are complicated and can't be predicted. He insists anarchism is a vague, philosophical tendency, never so coherent as to be called a system or a plan.

I'm sure you can find other self-described anarchists that would have a ready answer, but not Chomsky.

If you got him drunk enough to take the bait, he would say there would have to be really good reasons for a particular locked fence, otherwise, people should take it down. There would be no general rule about locks or fences, because that would be ludicrous.

Chomsky would not say, "under anarchism, there would be no locks," because anarchism is not a thing to be under. It's like asking, "will there be locks under rationalism?"

[/ QUOTE ]


What you are saying makes sense in my understanding of Chomsky, but it doesn't make it less idiotic. He repeatedly advocates an anarchy where there are basically no rules or property at all. And like you say, even simple things like a lock an a gate in Chomskyland are evil or useless. This is of course childishly naive and wholly unworkable.

While it is true that no one can know all things that would happen under a given theoretical system. We can of course postulate based on what we know of human nature, economics, and logic. The AC or Libertarian argument against central planning and for complete equality makes sense and follows from a logical beginning.Chomsky on the other hand proceeds from fuzzy logic at best and covers it over with elegant prose. To advocate a society with no respect for property or person is far beyond the bounds of reason and logic bordering on insanity.

Chomskyland as he describes it could work, but it would need to take place in some alternate universe where most of what we know of human nature does not exist.