Enforcing absentee property rules in an anarchist society would be counterproductive because such rules rely on coercive enforcement mechanisms typically provided by a state—police, courts, and legal systems—which anarchism fundamentally opposes.

Here are some key explanations with examples:

- **Dependence on coercion**: Absentee ownership depends on the threat or use of force to exclude others from land that the owner does not actively use. In an anarchist society, there is no state to enforce these rights, so absentee landlords would have to rely on private coercion. This can lead to constant conflict, violence, and instability as owners try to maintain control by force rather than voluntary agreement or use.

- **Undermines social harmony and mutual respect**: Without state enforcement, absentee owners cannot easily exclude others who want to use the land productively or for shelter. Attempts to uphold absentee ownership can create disputes harmful to the cooperative and egalitarian social relations anarchism seeks. For example, enforcing absentee ownership could provoke resistance from squatters or neighbors who rely on that land, leading to cycles of retaliation and community breakdown.

- **Economic inefficiency and alienation**: Ownership detached from direct use discourages care or improvement of the land, since absentee landlords gain income (rent) without contributing labor. Without a state, owners cannot easily monetize such ownership by charging rent, removing the incentive to hold land unused. This leads to better land use if people occupy and improve land directly rather than holding it absentee.

- **Perpetuation of artificial scarcity**: Enforcing absentee ownership confines land access to a few, creating artificial scarcity. In an anarchist society focused on equity and freedom, this scarcity is harmful because it restricts many people's ability to meet basic needs. For example, if absentee owners exclude others from fertile land they don’t use, it deprives the community of potential food production or housing space.

In sum, **the enforcement of absentee property rules without a state is impractical and destabilizing**. It would likely lead to violent private conflicts, undermine communal cooperation, discourage productive use of land, and maintain unjust inequalities—all contrary to anarchist principles of voluntary association, mutual aid, and equality[1][2][3][4].

Citations: