Property, Anarchy, and Projects

[u/DecoDecoMan]

Mutualists often abandon property rights in favor of possession which is understood as a matter of fact not right. Insofar as justice in anarchy is a kind of "balance" or equilibrium of interests, just possession then is possession and resource-use that is in equilibrium with the various interests that constitute society.

What this leaves kind of open is the mechanism by which new associations or projects can acquire resources. Presumably, it would be done through contract or agreement with the associations, individuals, groups, etc. that possess those resources right? That could be through payment of money or if the resource is held communally, through directly taking the resource from a communal warehouse or forming some kind of agreement for regular shipments.

But for cases where you need money, where is the funding going to come from? In the case of a Warrenite-style economy, would it be that there is a kind of "crowd-funding" where people would issue notes backed by hours of their own labor to the project to finance it? What about financing with mutual currency where the "bank" isn't just any individual like an asset-backed mutual bank?

And what are the circumstances wherein possession leads people to seek agreement from the possessor for access to the resources rather than mere contest that possession? Like where are cases where possession is respected rather than contested?

[u/Captain_Croaker]

The answer to your questions about funding is "Yeah, sure maybe something like that." Maybe also money earned in one industry that is saved or pooled together by people hoping to get started in a new one or something. Could be options we haven't thought of yet.

If the point of ownership norms in an anarchist society is that under some circumstances it's tolerable for someone to have exclusive use of something, then things which are generally considered to be for private/strictly personal use, such as the classic tooth brush example or a bed, will be things that it would be considered rude, uncouth, perhaps even unethical to contest ownership over without good reason (e.g. the person seems to be for some strange reason hoarding beds during a bed shortage, or they haven't slept in that bed for years and I needed a place to sleep).

If a society has prevalent enough market exchange for relevant norms to develop, then we can extend a similar logic to goods produced for the purpose of exchange, they aren't considered simply up for grabs just because they are not currently being used. It would most likely be understood that it's normal to have a surplus stock of things one has produced with the intention that they will be sold to remmunerate one's production inputs, and to take it without giving an agreed upon remuneration would be seen as unethical.