See, for instance (both by Roderick Long):
Equality: the Unknown Ideal: http://mises.org/story/804
(for the record, I see the kind of possessive ownership standards you've been talking about as a way to reconcile socioeconomic equality with equality of authority)

Why We Fight (the Power): http://aaeblog.com/2009/04/26/why-we-fight-the-po…

How exactly, in your hypothetical model of society, would people (vigilante individuals? regionally and democratically overseen police forces?) find and identify these claims to private property?

*Sigh* which is why you totally miss why the progress towards anarchy is more important than the end result. For my hypothetical society to even come into existence, people will have to be used to treat inequality as a problem. They will have to be used to seeing authority (wether of the elected officials, the landlord or the boss) as vile. They will have to be used to naturally oppose tactics and concepts that would lead to inequality and authority, much in the same way that (some? most?) people now naturally oppose slavery and support freedom of speech.

Once that is the case, as I pointed in Distinctions of Ownership, people would find as repulsive to exchange money or wealth for a temporary loan, as friends do. As such, the abolition of usury will have been internalized by most humans, much like respect to authority has been internalized now.

And the process by which we reach this result, is the most important, as it is what will train people to respect and promote equality and by extension individualism. The way by which we will discard capitalism and build up the future society will make such concepts as rent ridiculous to even contemplate.

It becomes structurally impossible.

> "The way I will suggest to abolish rent is to make it structurally impossible. And you do that by having a society which agrees on Possessive ownership. As such, I do not propose coercive force to prevent rent, only coercive force to prevent private property claims,"

Seriously? This is not an answer by any stretch of the imagination. It just restates the question. How exactly, in your hypothetical model of society, would people (vigilante individuals? regionally and democratically overseen police forces?) find and identify these claims to private property? Who gets to determine when a motel becomes an apartment complex? Who gets to determine when pre-established voluntary agreements between me and my friend regarding recompense for such loans becomes unacceptable?

"Structurally impossible" my ass. That's not structurally anything. That's simply laying down a law. I've touched upon a variety of the ways possible for a free market to structurally *impede* the statistically or proportionally relevant accumulation of wealth through rent-seeking. If you think the fringes of property/possession titles would be heavily influenced through diffuse dynamic issues means of reputation, trust, association and the like, then you're ultimately not stating anything substantively different than free market advocates. You're just being aggressively prescriptive about it.

The issue is the boundaries. You say it's a distinction within the realm of intention, never mind how the loose psychological and neurological territory, who gets to decide the intention of others? If one man occasionally rents out his guest bedroom and it's currently unoccupied does that give me the right to just forcibly move in? Please. That you seem obsessed with pouring over the minutia of these examples and addressing them from some high and mighty, magically objective "common sense" shows a real incapacity to see or address the spectrum of possibilities they open up.

I do not see how the free market theory can give explanations on how things can progress, when the free market theory can only work in a particular system. Any suggestions the free market theory thus makes, will fail or be corrupted because the system will not support them.

But as the one championing process here I think it's rather incumbent upon you to elaborate on just how you would go about outlawing rent, especially in those fringe conditions both parties participate in outside the purview of the rest of a society.

It's weird that you ask me that when we had a 170-reply discussion under the topic I was discussing exactly that! The way I will suggest to abolish rent is to make it structurally impossible. And you do that by having a society which agrees on Possessive ownership. As such, I do not propose coercive force to prevent rent, only coercive force to prevent private property claims, like I would propose coercive force to prevent slavery and any other tactic which would lead to authority and inequality.

You will undoubtedly claim, as you did before, that rewarding your friends who let you borrow stuff with gifts is "rent". But if with this you will be content, then I have no objection to this kind of "rent" as it is not only compatible with egalitarianism but seems to be part of human psychology (to want to reciprocate to those who helped you).

but the spare room in the house I built or my right to ask for recompense for the psychological worry of loaning out my car to gutter punk

No sorry, I do not buy this excuse. Not only do you assume that there will be "gutter punks" in an egalitarian society, but you assume that someone will force you to lend out your possessions. This makes no sense.

There's a quite common tendency these days within the left-liberal through anarchist activista scene to claim anarchism as a process rather than a goal, react violently to the conceptual modeling of potential systems and write off any projected future obstacles as something that we'll just trial and error our way through when they arrive. This is simply saddening.

RE: historical opposition to federations in the Span. Rev: The examples I brought were just that, examples. I was not attempting to show that they were the correct or only way. That is a discussion for another day.

As to your quote above, I would actually agree much more with the "anarchist activista" scene that anarchism is a process. By trying to conceptualize and thin of potential utopias one is simply wasting his time. This was actually the point of the article above and to bring that up as a counter argument, while not opposing any of the arguments for my position that I posted above is lazy to say the least.

Very distinct concepts and while you may write the latter off as utopian or a thought experiment, that doesn't invalidate the conceptual separation.

I do not see why you think I tried to invalidate the conceptual separation. In fact I say that there's no proof to claim that a free market can work and any axiomatic proof is useless.

So no, I'm not trying to equivocate or distort your concept. I'm calling it out as it is.