[Money2Burn]

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.