ericsf said:
Like this LEAF owner, you believe that anything which is in reach, unlocked, unmarked, etc... can be taken or used by anyone as they see fit... You're making me feel very naive right now. I'm not sure how I'd deal with you if you were using my frontyard hose to wash your car.
I think you're under the impression that anarchists desire to burn cities, steal, rape, etc... Anarchy doesn't mean without rules, it means without rule
rs. Every anarchist I know adheres to the non-aggression principle (meaning they are against the initiation of force). That confuses a lot of people, because immediately when people think of anarchists, they think of hooligans and violent youth, hell bent on destruction, theft, and general chaos- but that simply isn't the case.
Theft would be an initiation of force. So would trespassing. If you, an uninvited stranger, decided to help yourself to my garden hose to wash off your car without my permission, I might take issue with that, since your acts would constitute aggression against me and my property.
It's very different when we are talking about common property. Anyone is permitted to use common property, so long as the use of the property is reasonable. I don't think plugging in a car is unreasonable use of common property.
Others may disagree- which is why common property cannot exist without clearly defined rules. It's confusing when, without any established rules stating one way or the other, you go to the library and outlets are considered free to use, but when you go to the tennis court, outlets are off limits- even though both are common property, open to the general public. To complicate matters, we introduce the elements of a system of violence and theft (government) to the mix. He's forced to pay, under threat of violence, for the very electricity that he was accused of stealing.
So it's not just an issue of common property, it's also an issue of this confusing sense of forced entitlement due to this system of theft that we call taxation. In a free society, if there was common property, it wouldn't be funded through theft, so there wouldn't be this same sense of entitlement. The people that freely decide to contribute to the common property would presumably agree to establish clearly defined rules (remember, anarchy doesn't mean without rules, it means without rulers). Anyone who doesn't like the rules is free to suggest alternative rules, or can stop funding the common property altogether (and therefor not be entitled to its use).
Under the current system of socialism, taxpayers are not given the option to simply opt-out, and the direct responsibility of the establishment of rules by those who contribute (whether they want to or not) is obfuscated by "representatives" and bureaucrats. Taxpayers are forced to pay for and subscribe to these services and aren't even given a direct voice in the implementation of the rules, and who have no ability to opt-out if they don't like the rules established. Or in this case, the lack of rules established! There was no sign saying "ELECTRICITY OUTLET FOR SCHOOL MAINTENANCE USE ONLY", just like there was no sign allowing the use of the library outlet saying "YOU MAY USE THIS LIBRARY OUTLET FOR CHARGING CELL PHONES AND LAPTOPS".