From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:02:58 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct3004501@caisr1.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Okay, here are ten real questions for left-anarchists...

Sigh. The same old saws.

>1) Without property rights, what happens when two people want to use
>the same item at the same time, and neither is willing to back down?

Whoever was using it first has tenancy as long as they are not 1) using more
than their fair share of the earths resources 2) and the object embodies
only as much labor as they have contributed to society (baring those things
provided in the communist part of the economy by a decision of society).

>2) If they get into a fight, are the allowed to proceed, or will other
>people forcibly break it up?

If the fight is non consensual it would be broken up.

>3) Can you use force to prevent others from entering your home, or can
>anyone off the street decide they want to live with you?

I think a majoritarian society would allow you to eject someone coming into
your private area, i.e. would allow for private areas, and would help you
eject someone who violated that privacy. Force in the sense of injury or
death would be reserved for self-defence. In practice the two, forced entry
and the threat of injury, might come together and justify the use of
self-defence. Comprable housing would be provided for all, or at least
minimal housing, reducing any self-justification for such forced entry.

>4) If nobody owns anything, is anyone allowed to destroy anything?  Is
>nobody allowed to destroy anything?

If you created it, or created the equivalent in exchange, and society or the
earth was not harmed it would be a private act.

>5) What happens when nobody wants to do the unpleasant or boring jobs
>-- from working on an assembly line to shuffling papers in an office?

It will be automated, it won't get done, or I'll do it.

>6) When someone uses violence, is there organized retribution, and if
>so, of what kind?

Retribution no, but the possiblity of future violence will be minimized, either
immediate or in the long run. It would be organized and would be the minimum
needed to be effective. During an attack by a large gang it might include
artillery and such until they surrendured, for one individual running amok
it might be a gun or tranquilizer dart depending on the available technology.
In a lot of cases it would be talking to the person an calming them down.

>7) If someone is accused of using violence and denies it, is there an
>organized way of investigating and weighing the evidence?

Wouldn't it be a good idea? I quess you would ask how is that different than
a court and wouldn't that be a state. How is an organized investigation of
violence different than an investigation of why a plane crashed. Just because
the state presently provides it dosn't mean that it isn't useful. The state
tries to interject itself into every critical juncture in society, such as
health, education, transportation and security. At each point it tries to do
as little for the populace as it can get away with and still preserve their
utility as exploitable labor.

>8) Are people allowed to own weapons?  Any weapons?  If not, how do
>you enforce the ban?

I think it would be a good idea for most individuals to own small weapons
and light automatic weapons. Heavier weapons would be locked in the municipal
warehouse and released only by majority decision. If a dictatorial minority
tried to opress the community by virtue of their control of the heavy weapons
the majority could disarm them using the light weapons by virtue of their
greater numbers. I would certainly argue my position on front of an assembly
but reasonable people could differ on this. The advantage of this arranagement
is that there would be no need for a standing army. Some kind of defence would
be necessary until the whole world was anarchist. Small arms would be
necessary as long as groups would ever attack individuals or smaller groups.
Possibly there could come a time when people would not ever act out that
form of aggression. At that point the ownership of guns would not be socially
encouraged, but there would allways be some eccentrics that would own guns
as a hobby.

>9) How do you handle vendettas between groups that hate each other
>(enemies, rival families, rival gangs, ethnic groups, etc.)?

You could try to mediate, keep them apart, but be firm in the certainty that
they could not attack each other without experincing sociatal solidarity.

>10) If a group decides to establish control over property using
>weapons and force, do you attempt to stop them, and if so, how?

Yes, in kind.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy