But why would you want more than what you're capable of occupy and use in an anarchist environment?
Anything beyond this usufruct concept surely will become a form of exploitation and this is totally opposite from anarchism
Discussion
Nothing about wanting to own more land, as long as it is acquired by moral means is bad or oppressive. Your desire to restrict my ability to own property is evil. You literally have no right nor moral justification for saying that I should not own more than I can use or occupy.
Firstly: who are you to judge that?
Secondly: you still have not produced a morally consistent reason that non-occupatory ownership is wrong. Example: I don't need a car and a scooter, but guess what? I want a scooter to further minimize my commute costs. In your model, this is bad since I can't obviously drive both at once. This is asinine.
If I work my balls off to have the ammassed wealth to trade for more land and I find someone willing to trade what I have for the land without coercive measures on either party, it is literally none of your effing business what I do with that land, when I do it, with the exception being if I'm doing something that negatively effects my immediately adjacent neighbors.
If you do nothing with the land, you're inherently negatively impacting your neighbors property. First of all, i will end up suing you for allowing the spread of invasive species onto my property. Second, your forest is destroying my fence, sued. Third, if you have so much land you cant even use it, im gunna tell me friends to come squat and then what happens when 10 years later you discover them there? Big war, fun stuff.
Doing absolutely nothing with thousands of acres is how you get a mob at your gate.
Absolutely not.
1. Why are you assuming invasive species? Weird.
2. Why sue? Ask like a civilized person. A fence is reasonable expense if there is damage.
3. I'll have basic surveillance. You won't be there that long. You will asked to leave. Once.
You sound like an entitled git. Geez.
the system has warped all their fragile little eggshel minds. to quote cartman.
If you do nothing, you will inherently have invasive species. I dont think there is any places without them.
Suing is a major part of anarchism, you said you will not do abything on the property, so the compulsion to keep the forest from damaging my fence is "doing something"
The surveillance argument is irrelevant. Squatting happens, thats why states literally have it enshrined in laws.
Invasive species could count as negative externality. Your negligence of your abandoned property will cause harms to your neighbors
that's the thing. there would be gardeners anyway. the scenario is absurd.
"Nothing about wanting to own more land, as long as it is acquired by moral means is bad or oppressive. Your desire to restrict my ability to own property is evil. You literally have no right nor moral justification for saying that I should not own more than I can use or occupy."
It's because nearly all anarchist schools of thought (except "an"caps) understand that the larger is the property that a single person or group claim to own, the harder is keep and use it consistently throughout the time, that's why an abandonment criteria must exist, it's a way to prevent any return of exploitation, privilege and passive income that exists in our current statist system
"Secondly: you still have not produced a morally consistent reason that non-occupatory ownership is wrong. Example: I don't need a car and a scooter, but guess what? I want a scooter to further minimize my commute costs. In your model, this is bad since I can't obviously drive both at once. This is asinine."
Your personal belongings like vehicles fall in the category of possessions (not property land), which have a different dynamic in the anarchist interpretation