Ok, nice chat. I have to say, you are the most economically literate socialist I ever ran into. I think you didn’t address the problems with anarcho-socialism I brought up though. They are 1. Organizational processes like syndicalism or pure democracy are more authoritarian than propertarianism. Coercion isn’t voluntary because you had a vote. (And in practice leaders and a hierarchy will emerge.) 2. It would be a rudderless ship, there would be no unity about decisions like where to build roads. To make practical decisions you would either have to resort to authoritarian socialism (leaders impose decisions) or capitalism (e.g. labor vouchers, use rights). 3. The economic calculation problem even applies to small scale communes. You make it more managable, but in the end it’s central planning. Modern economic activity simply can’t be calculated by rational design.
All these also apply within syndicates, every time more than one person controls a resource. Feel free to respond, otherwise consider the debate wrapped up. Below some responses to your last post.
They are not state-like. They have no monopoly powers, but have to compete. They might resort to force, but merely to enforce contracts that people voluntarily agreed upon. In a society that rejects any way of resorting to force the weak would be at the mercy of the strong. Protection agencies protect individuals from harm by others.
There would be a bureaucracy with a monopoly over the administration of a territory, and it would use violence to enforce it’s rules. It would be a miniature state. For example, if I wanted to take some stone and build a well in my backyard, there would somebody to stop me and say, “that’s not what we want to do with those resources”. It wouldn’t really be collective ownership, but state ownership with small enough states for people to influence economic decisions directly.
Bosses are in a position of authority, by definition. You can’t have a economy without authority because decisions have to be made. The only way to not have positions of authority is to not have any economic activity. (Which seems to be the solution of some socialists.) Propertarianism is the least authoritarian system, because you can choose to opt out. You can work at a firm and will be told what to do, but you can always quit. You can also choose to not participate in the capitalist system at all, and grow your own food, but your standards of living would of course be pre-capitalist.
What socialists usually mean when they talk about hierarchy in capitalism is that capitalists have an unfair advantage over workers because they own the means of production. As such there would be a natural hierarchy and “wage slavery” in a propertarian system. That’s what I disagree with, but I don’t suggest we get into that here.
I think they will work, but I can’t refer to any empiric evidence to defend that belief. It’s theory. We have evidence to confirm all the other stuff, that communes don’t work or that you can’t calculate economic activity, but a private legal systems wasn’t attempted on a noteworthy scale.
I meant it as a practical concern. Who would control the resources, if there are no owners? Usually socialists solve that dilemma by referring to a collective instead of individuals. But you seem to not fall into the trap of collective terms.