anarcho socialism question

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about set rules. I'm saying individuals have no obligation to respect private property. But almost everyone will agree that respecting some right to private property is necessary to make society work well and individuals feel well, so that will be the standard. And if someone doesn't respect property at all they will probably face severe negative social and economical sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, but you're being far too vague. Let me outline my understanding of what you're saying, and you correct me if I'm wrong:

You're saying we need to recognize property rights sometimes, but not other times, because that is the most beneficial overall. If we don't REQUIRE recognition of any property rights, then people will go about their business, recognizing property rights as they see fit. Some people will not recognize "enough" property rights in others, and others will marginalize them by choosing not to interact with them until. Some people will recognize "too much" property rights and claim an excess of property for themselves. They will also be marginalized by others who don't feel they should be allowed to own so much and will choose not to interact with them. In the end, these opposing passively coercive forces will establish a sort of "social norm" for the extent to which property rights are recognized.

How did I do?

[wtfsvi]

Yes, that's right. That's one of the best case scenarios anyway. I can't tell you what free choice will lead to, only guess (and hope).

I'm glad I get to hide behind that one for once [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]