[Red Barn]

But if you want to insist that some variants of "Libertarian-this" or "Libertarian-that" can be correctly applied to political systems in which control of private property is lost by peaceful individuals when those individuals choose to use it in a way which leads those in power to seize it from them ... err... socialize it, rather... then fine. What, then, is your preferred description of the political philosophy Eran advocates?

As I'm sure you're well aware, "Anarcho-Capitalist" is already standard usage. The term is well understood, is easily referrenced, and - best of all - points directly to the defining feature of this world view. So why change it? That's the question.

Since "capitalism" has acquired a negative connotation An-Caps would very much like to distance themselves from this label by pretending that their views actually differ in some appreciable way from the policies and outcomes of the crony-capitalism of the present.

"Propertarian Libertarian," as defined in Wiki, would also work:

Propertarian libertarian philosophies define liberty as non-aggression (an arrangement in which no person or group "aggresses" against any other party), where aggression is defined as the violation of private property. This philosophy implicitly recognizes private property as the sole source of legitimate authority. Propertarian libertarians hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes. They generally support the free-market, and are not opposed to any concentration of power (e.g. monopolies), provided it is brought about through non-coercive means.

"Right Libertarian" and "Right Anarchist" are also acceptable.



"Libertarian Anarchist" is idiotic. Even you, Phred, should recognize this.

[AFAIK]

In a free market system prices are set by supply and demand.
If the supply of labour is greater than the demand for labour then wages and working conditions will fall.
If the demand for labour is greater than the supply wages and working conditions will rise.

(Rephrasing- demand for jobs vs supply of jobs)

Historically the only occasion when labour shortages occurred was following the black death in western Europe.
Labourers were able to demand better pay and conditions as there were many competitors seeking their services.

Today shortages occur in localised settings but are mitigated by automation, migration and offshoring/ outsourcing.
Birth rates have fallen dramatically over the past century and global population levels are expected to peak at 9 billion during this century.
I expect the balance of power to shift towards labour as supplies diminish.

Do left-anarchists acknowledge that restructuring society in a manner that benefits workers harms others?
Investors, consumers and the unemployed will be worse off as well as foreigners whose products are excluded from your markets.

[Phred]

It (anarchism) is anti-authoritarian...

What is authoritarian about Phred's Ceramics or Mr PC's Sandwich Emporium described in this thread?

...where authoritarian structures are unjustified from an efficiency point of view...

Why do you care? If there is an extra layer or two of management at Phred's Ceramics that you personally judge to be unnecessary and therefore Phred's Ceramics is running at what you believe to be less than optimal efficiency, so what? Who is harmed? What does it matter to you? Or to anyone other than Phred, for that matter?

If the only reaction from you and your ilk this supposed inefficiency elicited was a shaking of your heads at Phred's folly, no one would care. But you don't stop there. You instead forcefully interfere with the peaceful (albeit arguably less-than-perfectly-efficient) interactions between consenting adults. That's where the injustice occurs.

...and tend towards centralization of power...

Define "power". In the case of Phred's ceramics, it is centralized around Phred, and the only "power" Phred possesses is the "power" to attempt to persuade someone to exchange their services for Phred's currency (in the case of Phred's employees) or to attempt to persuade someone else (in the case of Phred's customers) to exchange their currency for products offered for sale by Phred's Ceramics. Again, the same set of questions - why do you care? Who is being harmed? What gives you the right to interfere?

In other words, why does your judgment trump the judgment of the people who are actually doing the (peaceful, voluntary, mutually beneficial) interacting? And trump it not just in a theoretical, beer-fueled sophomore poli-sci 201 bull session around the table of the local university student-run pub sense, mind, but in the very real, practical, guns-in-your-face sense of the Community Resource Allocation Council Enforcement Committee showing up at the door and seizing all the cutting boards and bread knives and forcefully restraining anyone who protests.

To not recognize that, at least so it seems to me, and therefore to simply want to dismantle the state, but leave the heart of the problem in place (the institution of private property)...

But private property is not in fact a problem. That is what baffles non-Lefties: the Lefty insistence in the face of all evidence to the contrary that allowing people to keep their peacefully-acquired stuff is a problem. Not just a problem, mind, but the problem. The biggest problem facing mankind, in the eyes of Lefties. So big that it justifies forcefully stripping people of their freedom to prevent it from occurring.

There has been a whole history of writers and movements that were not only counter to hard right Marxist leaning movements (even before the Russian revolution), but also real examples of something different (e.g. Paris Commune, anarchist Spain).

By what process did the members of the Paris Commune obtain their means of production? By what process did the Spanish anarchists obtain their means of production?


Phred

[anticlimacus]

What is authoritarian about Phred's Ceramics or Mr PC's Sandwich Emporium described in this thread?

We went through this, didn't we? And I think the conclusion was that you 1) failed to realize that a successful anarchist revolution not only makes the state superfluous, but also capitalism and 2) that capitalism is a system, not an isolated event. Your insistence that capitalism necessarily crops up is nothing but an unfounded assumption--we might as well say feudalism will just naturally develop. There's no reason to make that assumption, that is unless we have an ideological ax to grind...

[Phred]

Phred: What is authoritarian about Phred's Ceramics or Mr PC's Sandwich Emporium described in this thread?

anticlimacus: We went through this, didn't we?

You never answered that question. You didn't answer it this time, either.

And I think the conclusion was that you 1) failed to realize that a successful anarchist revolution not only makes the state superfluous, but also capitalism...

If true, that still doesn't answer the question - what is "authoritarian" (your word) about either Phred's Ceramics or Mr PC's Sandwich Emporium?

... and 2) that capitalism is a system, not an isolated event.

Yes, Phred's Ceramics and Mr PC's Sandwich Emporium are run according to a certain system. The people interacting at those two enterprises are not acting randomly, but systematically. So what? You haven't demonstrated that the system under which they operate is "authoritarian".

Your insistence that capitalism necessarily crops up is nothing but an unfounded assumption--we might as well say feudalism will just naturally develop.

Eran and I assured you it will develop because people like Eran and I exist. I would most assuredly use my skills as a potter to start an enterprise pretty nearly identical to the one I described in that thread.

First you denied that Phred's Ceramics as described was really a capitalist enterprise, so there was no need for you to interfere with its operation. Then when Red Barn threw you a life line about Phred's Ceramics appropriating valuable resources (mud) without the unanimous consent of everyone on the planet, you decided that Phred's Ceramics was indeed capitalist, therefore could not be allowed to continue to operate.

So yes... by your own admission, capitalism does indeed necessarily crop up spontaneously.

There's no reason to make that assumption, that is unless we have an ideological ax to grind...

It's not an assumption at all, but a certainty. There are plenty of people like Eran and myself on the planet and there always will be. People like us will act as we described (as entrepreneurial capitalists) in that other thread unless prevented by force from doing so. It's amusing that you can't see that you are indulging in a far more unlikely assumption: that capitalism won't crop up. Of course it will: all that is left to describe is what will be the response from you and your ilk.


Phred

[anticlimacus]

First you denied that Phred's Ceramics as described was really a capitalist enterprise, so there was no need for you to interfere with its operation. Then when Red Barn threw you a life line about Phred's Ceramics appropriating valuable resources (mud) without the unanimous consent of everyone on the planet, you decided that Phred's Ceramics was indeed capitalist, therefore could not be allowed to continue to operate.

So yes... by your own admission, capitalism does indeed necessarily crop up spontaneously.

Yes, Phred's Ceramics and Mr PC's Sandwich Emporium are run according to a certain system. The people interacting at those two enterprises are not acting randomly, but systematically. So what? You haven't demonstrated that the system under which they operate is "authoritarian".

Capitalism is a system. The fact that you have an enterprise with voluntary labor, does not mean you are working within a capitalist system. In fact, the only reason you are met with voluntary labor--and are able, for some reason, to successfully invite other's in to wage labor--is precisely because you are not in a capitalist system.

It's not an assumption at all, but a certainty. There are plenty of people like Eran and myself on the planet and there always will be. People like us will act as we described (as entrepreneurial capitalists) in that other thread unless prevented by force from doing so. It's amusing that you can't see that you are indulging in a far more unlikely assumption: that capitalism won't crop up. Of course it will: all that is left to describe is what will be the response from you and your ilk.

Well this just sounds like dogma to me (reason # 186, 174 or something that ancaps are not liked). You are convinced that capitalism will simply crop up, even though you and Eran exist within a post-capitalist world. That's like saying since there are socialists in the US, the US will necessarily become socialist--or you could really substitute any sub-group for "socialist". The logic is simply flawed. Nobody says there will not be diversity, but one key thing is that there will be no group with nothing but there labor power to sell and another group who controls the means of production.

[Eran]

I think it's anarcho-capitalism through and through, and as I mentioned in my last post, this is fundamentally because it leads to two entirely different strategies: You leave capitalism in place and destroy the state--this leads naturally to anarcho-capitalism, even if there are some syndicates (after all there currently are syndicates, but we don't live in a socialist society). How do we not have some form of anarcho-capitalism if private property is still a mainstay of economic and social function and the modern state no longer exists?

Since I am nothing if not reasonable and amenable to persuasion, I am going to accept your proposal.

In these forums, I will, henceforth, refer to myself (proudly!) as an Anarcho-Capitalist (or ancap for short), relying on the good understanding that you demonstrated of the subtlety of my position.

It is anti-authoritarian, where authoritarian structures are unjustified, controlling, and tend towards centralization of power, as I view private property relations do.

As Phred suggested, it is very hard to see how private property relations (i.e. relation between the owners of productive property and employees working for them under mutually-agreed contractual arrangements) can be categorically characterised as "unjustified, controlling and tending towards centralization of power".

All the arguments I have seen to date refer to circumstances under which superficially-voluntary arrangements may be more correctly viewed or characterised as unjustified, controlling or even involuntary. But as a life-long employee myself, I can say with confidence that employee-employer relationships certainly need not be viewed negatively.

You can sensibly reject the negative aspects of a wage-economy and even contemplate the institutional and cultural settings that will mitigate and prevent those negative aspects from arising without categorically rejecting all such relations, especially given that those relations are often (and very understandably) viewed as desirable and positive by the workers themselves.

Except for the fact that there is a key difference you are ignoring, and incidentally this is why it is important to point to the history of anarchism. There has been a whole history of writers and movements that were not only counter to hard right Marxist leaning movements (even before the Russian revolution), but also real examples of something different (e.g. Paris Commune, anarchist Spain). The same cannot be said for the Liberals.

I do not know enough about the Paris Commune or anarchist Spain to opine.

However, in the right-libertarian context, peaceful cooperation is actually the norm, even if it takes place "under the nose" of an oppressive state. Every day, billions of people interact with each other peacefully and to mutual benefit. Whenever you buy your food in a supermarket. Whenever a worker receives his monthly wages, whenever people come together to pursue a common peaceful goal, social, environmental, religious, scientific or athletic, whenever a new product, the brain-child of a hard-working entrepreneur, hits the market and makes the lives of thousands or millions of customers a little better you see instances of right-libertarianism at work.

As I'm sure you're well aware, "Anarcho-Capitalist" is already standard usage. The term is well understood, is easily referenced, and - best of all - points directly to the defining feature of this world view. So why change it? That's the question.

Fair enough. As noted above, I accept.

Historically the only occasion when labour shortages occurred was following the black death in western Europe.
Labourers were able to demand better pay and conditions as there were many competitors seeking their services.
...
Today shortages occur in localised settings but are mitigated by automation, migration and offshoring/ outsourcing.

Localised and short-term labour shortages (as well as cases of unemployment) are endemic. They happen all the time. In capitalist economies, they are mitigated by the simple mechanism of raised or lowered wages.

I expect the balance of power to shift towards labour as supplies diminish.

It is a mistake, imo, to even view the issue in terms of "balance of power". At the market-clearing wages, both sides have equal power. Employers cannot reduce wages (or equivalently make other conditions worse) without losing their workers to competitors. Workers cannot pressure employers for higher wages (or equivalently, better conditions) without risking losing their jobs.

Job shortages (in other words, unemployment) is endemic only when various forms of intervention impede the market from clearing.

Do left-anarchists acknowledge that restructuring society in a manner that benefits workers harms others?
Investors, consumers and the unemployed will be worse off as well as foreigners whose products are excluded from your markets.

Most so-called "labour-friendly" policies don't even benefit all workers. They tend to benefit some workers (high-skilled, unionised, politically powerful) at the expense of other workers.

Your insistence that capitalism necessarily crops up is nothing but an unfounded assumption--we might as well say feudalism will just naturally develop. There's no reason to make that assumption, that is unless we have an ideological ax to grind...

Now I am confused. If you are confident that capitalism will not naturally develop - you have nothing to worry about. Phred and I will let you set your left-anarchist paradise if you agree not to interfere in the (impossible, in your mind) event that instances of capitalism do arise.

If you truly believe your own words, you would jump at the proposal - after all, you will have created conditions under which capitalism won't re-emerge.

Phred and I will be content because, emerge or not, a free and peaceful society will have been created. If it materialises that you were correct - more power to you. We won't hold a grudge.

It's not an assumption at all, but a certainty.

As a matter of opinion, I agree. But as a matter of policy, it doesn't matter. As long as anticlimacus agrees not to send people with guns to interfere with peaceful interactions, we don't need to agree on the question of whether capitalism will re-emerge or not. Let's just wait and see.

Capitalism is a system. The fact that you have an enterprise with voluntary labor, does not mean you are working within a capitalist system. In fact, the only reason you are met with voluntary labor--and are able, for some reason, to successfully invite other's in to wage labor--is precisely because you are not in a capitalist system.

At what point does capitalism become established as a system? If we start with your ideal society, and allow occasional, small-scale, privately-owned and wage-labour-based enterprises to exist, what would be the first signs that capitalism as a system is re-emerging?

Are you concerned about the infamous "concentration of capital" whereby today's friendly and small-scale Phred will, if not stopped by force, grow like a black hole and will ultimately take over all such a large fraction of available means of production as to be able to dictate unfair terms on his employees?

Nobody says there will not be diversity, but one key thing is that there will be no group with nothing but there labor power to sell and another group who controls the means of production.

You are starting to make me regret my earlier concession. Is it your understanding that the capitalism that Phred and I advocate is necessarily a system in which a neat separation into the two groups exists (or a tendency towards such separation would naturally occur)?

[anticlimacus]

You are starting to make me regret my earlier concession. Is it your understanding that the capitalism that Phred and I advocate is necessarily a system in which a neat separation into the two groups exists (or a tendency towards such separation would naturally occur)?

Nothing is ever neat, Eran. This was a general point, which, I would hope is not too controversial. What does it mean to have private ownership of the means of production as a central aspect of the functioning of the economy if, at the same time, you do not have a large pool of those who must sell their labor power to those who control capital? Otherwise, we are talking about conditions in which all share, in a substantive way, in the handling the means of production--but that's not capitalism...that would be a socialist variety. But maybe I am missing something here?

[Red Barn]

In these forums, I will, henceforth, refer to myself (proudly!) as an Anarcho-Capitalist (or ancap for short) . . .

Excellent!

Score 1 credibility point for Eran.

[Eran]

This was a general point, which, I would hope is not too controversial. What does it mean to have private ownership of the means of production as a central aspect of the functioning of the economy if, at the same time, you do not have a large pool of those who must sell their labor power to those who control capital?

Actually, the point is far, very far from obvious.

There are many forms of production that are both capitalist and fail to neatly (or even generally) distinguish between those selling their labour and those owning the means of production.

One example that we discussed a lot is a syndicate. An economy can be dominated by syndicates which nonetheless interact with each other though pure market transactions. In that sense, and if I understand your view correctly, it will fall short of your moneyless ideal. It would be capitalist in the sense that means of production aren't owned by society at large, but by identifiable small groups, albeit groups dominated by workers.

A second example, perhaps more realistic, is largely what we have today - an economy dominated by publicly-traded corporations. It isn't difficult to picture a society in which those corporations are, in turn, primarily owned by institutional investors such as pension fund, mutual funds, university endowments and, perhaps, endowments owned by large charitable organizations (think International Red Cross or Nobel Foundation to get the scale). In that case, most people are, ultimately, property owners, if only through their pension fund. Couple that with a culture of strong shareholder oversight (one idea I have seen recently is to professionalise corporate directorship by allowing institutions rather than only individuals to be directors) to "reign in" senior employees.

A third example would be production based much more on smaller companies, often sole-proprietorships or small partnerships. Sure - some productive enterprises are relatively large. But even a major auto worker could end up outsourcing much of its production and development efforts to smaller enterprises. McDonald's, for example, isn't technically the employer of many of its servers due to the franchise system.
Most people would find themselves either self-employed, partners in a small company, or a stone-throw away from being either (e.g. generally only being employed during the first few years of your career).

Even within capitalist enterprises, of course, those who control capital tend to be workers themselves, even if the reverse (workers controlling capital) isn't the case.

Obviously, all of the above, as well as a more traditional capitalist model of production could all co-exist. The important point is that the presence of competitive alternatives would force even traditional capitalists to improve the terms they offer workers (financially, in terms of security, benefits as well as less tangible involvement in the running of the business) so as to compete with more worker-friendly enterprises.

The bottom line is that private ownership of the means of production, or capitalism, is far from necessarily implying even a broad division of society into controlling and controlled.

[anticlimacus]

The bottom line is that private ownership of the means of production, or capitalism, is far from necessarily implying even a broad division of society into controlling and controlled.

The syndicate option is different--market socialism and mutualism would posit publicly owned banks for control of capital, and the worker ownership is fundamentally different than in capitalist relationships.

Nevertheless to be clear, I am not disputing the fact that there is clearly diversity in the current existing economy, and to that extent I agree with you. But you, at the same time, seem to be equating two very different things: for instance you would say the Starbucks barista who owns a fraction of a share in the company is now a capitalist just like the major Starbucks investors who release capital into Starbucks for its expansion, or just like the group of large shareholders who get to make all the decisions on concerning the capital. There is a clear difference, not only in wealth but primarily in decision making capability. Similarly, you point to the franchise of McDonald's as an example of diversity in ownership--which is again a bit odd. What you have, indeed, is expansion of those who can control a satellite, but McDonald's is typically an example of standardization, where all real meaningful decisions about what McDonald's sells and how it operates are top down, routine based, and with an assembly line mentality for the production of profit--which, disproportionately goes to the corporate owners of the franchise.

Be that as it may, I think what is safe to say is that a socialist society does not involve any private ownership of the means of production, and as a result wage labor, as it is realized within capitalism, ceases to exist. The fact that you take capitalist relations to be much more liberating and egalitarian than I do does not really change that essential difference to what we are talking about. Private property and it's correlate wage labor, no longer exists in a libertarian socialist world.

[Eran]

you would say the Starbucks barista who owns a fraction of a share in the company is now a capitalist just like the major Starbucks investors who release capital into Starbucks for its expansion, or just like the group of large shareholders who get to make all the decisions on concerning the capital. There is a clear difference, not only in wealth but primarily in decision making capability.

Of course.

The President of the United States has much more decision-making power than the average citizen, even though we live in a democracy. In fact, he has much more decision-making power because we live in a democracy, and a majority authorised him to act on their behalf (at least in theory).

Many of the largest institutional investors represent, fairly democratically, millions of pension savers and mutual fund owners. Their power is, effectively, delegated from millions of individual investors.

After all, how else would decisions impacting such a large organisation with many thousands of workers spread all over the world be made? Of necessity, you would have delegates or representatives making the actual decisions on behalf of all those workers.

In fact, however, day-to-day decisions are typically not made by shareholders at all, but rather by hired management. For the sake of efficiency, this is likely to be the case under any form of organisation of all but the smallest of companies.

McDonald's is typically an example of standardization, where all real meaningful decisions about what McDonald's sells and how it operates are top down, routine based, and with an assembly line mentality for the production of profit--which, disproportionately goes to the corporate owners of the franchise.

Decision-making authority is divided between the centre and the franchise. Franchisees invest their savings and give a large fraction of their profit to McDonald's corporation when they could, with those same savings, open their own restaurant. Why? Obviously because the benefit of using McDonald's reputation and economies of scale is worth it.

Again, it is hard to see how affairs could be conducted substantively differently in a socialist economy. The benefits of standardisation still require central coordination at the enterprise level, and central decisions would have to be made by delegates. You cannot have all several millions of McDonald's employees reviewing and voting on new menu options on a daily basis. In practice, the employees would have to choose representatives to make daily decisions on their behalf. Immediately, you'll have inequity in decision-making authority between the delegates and your typical worker.

The fact that you take capitalist relations to be much more liberating and egalitarian than I do does not really change that essential difference to what we are talking about. Private property and it's correlate wage labor, no longer exists in a libertarian socialist world.

The fact that capitalist relations can be much more liberating and egalitarian, diverse and adaptive, does weaken the categorical case against capitalism (as distinguished from the case against particular implementations of capitalism).

[Baff]

Capitalism is a system. The fact that you have an enterprise with voluntary labor, does not mean you are working within a capitalist system. In fact, the only reason you are met with voluntary labor--and are able, for some reason, to successfully invite other's in to wage labor--is precisely because you are not in a capitalist system.

Yes, it is only a system.

But Phred has the right of it.

I wasn't born a capitalist, it's a system I chose to adopt.
There are many other systems I have also chosen to adopt and capitalism is not the only one.
It's not an either or.... it's an "and".

I was however born into a socialist system. This is a sytem I have not chosen to adopt, but one that has been forced onto me. I quite literally have no choice in the matter.
Perhaps if I did I would still chose to make this choice, perhaps not.

Capitalism though is inherantly a free system. If you do not wish to buy shares in a company or to ask people for investment in return for a share of your profits... you quite literally do not have to.
Indeed a great many people here choose not to.

However it should not be lost on you that a great many more people. Infact the bulk of all free people in my country... choose to adopt capitalism.
It's not a legal requirement. It's not a physical necessity for life.

It's simply a system that many people understand and feel that they are able to prosper from using.


I just think anti-capitalists are inherantly anti-social. They see people doing better than them and resent it.
They want to screw it up for them. To get their revenge for being made to feel inadequate by other peoples superior ability to get the things in life they themselves covet most.
By default I consider them to be nihilists. Those who perversely wish to destroy productivity and place a priority upon this act of social destruction greater than they do their desire to see others doing well.

[Kapanda]

I love discussions in this forum (read: like).

I just wish people would shorten their responses and not block text everything.

[Eran]

I just wish people would shorten their responses

Got it!

[Technology]

All these arguments over two different extremes of property rights!

Declaring community ownership of everything creates a ridiculously locked down society subject to the whims of those dominant enough to "represent" the community. Likewise, unaccounted private acquisition results in the same thing in the end through expanding zones of exclusion. Coercive authority abounds here.

If you can achieve anarchy at all, limits to ownership should be organic. That there is such a bridge between anarchists, suggests no revolution is forthcoming any time soon. On the other hand, if we organically approached a state of anarchy, then it will be because people with diverse property conceptions evolve past the need to endorse centralized involuntary power structures. If that is so, then a sense of private ownership of the means of production is likely to be maintained, because most people don't want to consult a "wise council" before they do everything.

Most people do not buy into the idea that all non-community acquisition is immoral and somehow terrifyingly exploitative even if it's involuntary, because it might affect someone through an unspecified chain of events somehow. Most people aren't that paranoid. However, neither do most people shy away from the idea of limiting property to avoid concrete, and present injustice, which is why we employ government to do so now. In a more decentralized society, there isn't likely to be a binding rule of property for every community on the entire earth that accords to left-anarchist thinking or else. Neither is there likely to be no one in particular communities begrudging particular acquisitions and refusing to recognize particular conceptions right-anarchists would have us accept. Property rights are likely to be organic and highly local for the simple reason that anything else would require large scale centralization to enforce and back to a state we go!

A centrist, non-universalist, pragmatic conception of the means of production is essential to any reasonable process of decentralism.

[mum]

Likewise, unaccounted private acquisition results in the same thing in the end through expanding zones of exclusion. Coercive authority abounds here.

What examples in real life are there of unaccounted private acquisition of property that included expanding zones of exclusion (to what/whom?).
If you actually have some, do/have they required the use of government force ?

[Eran]

I would join mum's question. In addition:

However, neither do most people shy away from the idea of limiting property to avoid concrete, and present injustice, which is why we employ government to do so now.

We should be very careful when making "why" statements about collective action. We can just as easily argue, for example, that government has managed to obtain the passive consent of the public to many expansions of its power, plausibly if falsely presented as serving the public interest, but in fact serving the interests of those in government and their buddies.

Property rights are likely to be organic and highly local for the simple reason that anything else would require large scale centralization to enforce and back to a state we go!

I would be very happy with that scenario, if only for the simple reason that I believe competition between local communities will tend towards the domination of the right-libertarian model.

Those communities which insist on limiting, taxing or outright expropriating the peacefully-used property of productive citizens will soon find themselves with very few productive citizens.

Today, moving to a different country is very difficult and expensive. The more you localize property-related rules, the easier it would be for people to "vote with their feet".

[Technology]

What examples in real life are there of unaccounted private acquisition of property that included expanding zones of exclusion (to what/whom?).
If you actually have some, do/have they required the use of government force ?

Property currently has limits because of government. If it didn't, and we lived in right-anarchy, someone could, for example, purchase the property around other properties until they could control water access and other things to those properties and make them pay. Someone could also build up resources through capitalism until they can control stupidly large land areas in general, and this would become a tyranny due to their exclusion rights and the ability to box people in, and monopolize resources.

We should be very careful when making "why" statements about collective action. We can just as easily argue, for example, that government has managed to obtain the passive consent of the public to many expansions of its power, plausibly if falsely presented as serving the public interest, but in fact serving the interests of those in government and their buddies.

But the very existence of people willing to argue for different property conceptions, in the form of left-anarchists, and the larger existence of left-statists who hold similar property designs just in a more centralized form, means that if we evolve towards anarchy, the left portion of the populace is significant enough to carry forward a competing property definition into the anarchist world.

I would be very happy with that scenario, if only for the simple reason that I believe competition between local communities will tend towards the domination of the right-libertarian model.

Those communities which insist on limiting, taxing or outright expropriating the peacefully-used property of productive citizens will soon find themselves with very few productive citizens.

I think you're right in an extreme sense; communities that follow the rigid left-anarchist wishes are likely to see outflight and resentment. Still, my point is that even voluntary acquisition of resources carries externalities that may upset the community, and the nature of things like homesteading unused land requires that people accept your claim. I don't see rigid right-anarchism as viable either.

There shouldn't be a formalized system everywhere that says "everything belongs to the people", but there should be acceptance of the fact that your ability to have private property depends on; A: other people's acceptance of your claim, and B: your ability to physically defend it.

Property rights don't come out of the air from God. Property rights are inherently socialized in some broad sense because they depend on your relation to others. They may not be in the more rigid and specific sense that left-anarchists seem to want, but there is some dependance on community acceptance. Perhaps more in the sense of not pissing off your community, or declaring unused land in the countryside for miles to be yours, rather than having to ask specific permission (from who?) for every trade, or homesteading effort anywhere in the world.

[mum]

Property currently has limits because of government. If it didn't, and we lived in right-anarchy, someone could, for example, purchase the property around other properties until they could control water access and other things to those properties and make them pay. Someone could also build up resources through capitalism until they can control stupidly large land areas in general, and this would become a tyranny due to their exclusion rights and the ability to box people in, and monopolize resources.

You have basically described what government does today. The government makes claims to huge tracts of land and prevents others from obtaining it. Much of this land is unused. Where politically convenient this land is unfairly given to special interests to mine etc.

There are actually no limits to how much land an individual can own. So what the hell are you talking about? The stupid example you made up about purchasing surrounding land and cutting someone off would obviously be a violation of their rights and illegal state or no state.