Funny, because it taught me that that task in reality is impossible, given real nations can't load an old save file to fix their fuck ups in a simulation far, far simpler than reality.

Of course you could certainly argue that one person wouldn't be in charge of doing literally everything.

weird take. video games have to have a command economy because they are designed to be played. a free market city builder would just be a screensaver.

I've had similar thoughts about the auction house in World of Warcraft. Since the game caps the amount of gold you can have at a small fraction of the overall economy, no one person can buy everything and then jack up the prices.

I mean, the moral is that free markets are a fiction when primary accumulation is illegal.

I can't simply claim a vacant property at the clearance rate. I need to bargain with a landlord at a cartel price. And thanks to public-private collusion, we routinely tax, trade, and subsidize properties at three entirely different figures.

Every economy is a command economy. The question you have to ask is who is in control.

Along those same lines, they didn't put parking lots in Sim City. They tried, but it completely fucked everything.

There's that poem(?) about that

"""

"Get off this estate."

"What for?"

"Because it's mine."

"Where did you get it?"

"From my father."

"Where did he get it?"

"From his father."

"And where did he get it?"

"He fought for it."

"Well, I'll fight you for it."

"""

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9358361-get-off-this-estate-what-for-because-it-s-mine-where

Believe it or not, people on the left have been discussing this for centuries.

The general idea is recognizing a right to "personal property", which you get from using something, instead of the capitalist idea of "private property", which you get from buying something.

Currently in Western capitalist societies, if a rich person buys fifty houses, he owns fifty houses; he can live in one and collect rent from the other forty-nine, or leave the other forty-nine vacant, or tear them down to build one giant fortified survival compound, as he chooses. His property, his choice, whether it benefits the community or not.

In a society without private property, that rich person could only own one house - the house he lives in - because he lives in it and uses it. The people who live in and use the other forty-nine houses would own those. And the land underneath the houses would be owned by nobody, but belong collectively to the community, so no one person or company could accumulate land to the detriment of everyone else.

Landlords hate this idea.

Here's a really super basic summary:

https://www.workers.org/private-property/

And here's a long complicated discussion:

https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/anarchism-and-private-property

You don't own the stall of a public toilet and you can still expect to use it without having people walk on you. It's like we can all agree to distribute resources and keep rights like privacy without the need of property.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon#Private_property_and_the_state

Some good reading to start with.

One of the main things to take away is that there's a difference between personal property and private property.

Personal property are things like your clothes, your home, the items you use regularly.

Private property are things you own but don't personally use, don't take real responsibility for.

For example, if you have the money, you can purchase a factory. But a factory is too large an item for one person to ever claim they personally run the whole thing and take full responsibility for. There's many people involved in running a factory, from cleaners to accountants, do they not also take responsibility for their part?

If the factory could never run without all of these workers, can the owner really claim that the factory is theirs? It is everyone who works there's. Why then does the owner get to keep all the money the factory produces? Because they stumped up some cash a few years ago?

The owners are smart enough to pay you for your labour. Maybe even a bonus for a successful year. Some benefits maybe when people start unionising and demanding more. But at the end of the day, the owner still gets the vast vast majority of the profits despite not putting in the vast majority of the work. How is this fair?

I've run out of steam now, it's been a long day, but if you genuinely meant your comment in good faith have a read of the links above.

Concepts of ownership aren’t going to stop you from walking into someone else’s house currently

Anarchists (including us) mostly talk about personal vs private property. For example in an anarchist society nobody is going to take your toothbrush or house, but you aren't allowed to own a house you don't live in (yet still charge for) nor a factory where other people work, those things would be communally owned and cared for, or given to someone in need (in the case of a house). So it's kind of a semi-ownership at least compared to how it is now, you get what you need, not more than that.

Everyone gets their own home. The land is shared and distributed among the population according to their needs.

Its not the concept of ownership its the concept of private property. Of owning property that you do not occupy. Of housing belonging to anyone other than who presently lives there.

thatsthejoke.jpg

I mean, better to have 25 more years of relative normativity than 4 or less