RE: Should anarchists abolish the commons?
As far as the idea of 'abolishing' anything, I feel like that's a bit over the top for me. The entire point of anarchy is that there's no ultimate overarching group or organization that can dictate to everyone else. Kind of hard to abolish something if you can't forbid people from doing it.
Secondly, as far as the commons go, if you're using something, and it doesn't belong to someone else, then it's yours.
That neatly sorts out the issues of airspace for airplanes, you own the chunk of air you're flying through, and you can't fly low enough to physically affect the ground that someone else owns.
Also, the problems of ocean. You own the bit of water that your boat is sitting in and wherever your net is. If you build an island, well, it's not ocean. If you build a floating whatever, then it's just like a boat.
Waterways are somewhat different than oceans, in that they're bound by land on either side, which can be built on. So, let's say you build some kind of gate across a river. Alright, then. Charge away. If you charge too much, people will start shipping overland or by air or via teleportation or whatever. Issue resolved.
Air quality is tricky, but it -is- in everyone's best interest, including polluters, to keep the air clean. Don't associate with polluters, problem solved.
Fisheries are simply an extension of ocean. You own the bit where your boat and net are.
Forests, well, you own land, so you can forbid people from cutting down your trees on that land. As far as preserving forests, currently, in the U.S., logging companies are required to replant after they cut. So, if that's a concern you have, simply disassociate from loggers who don't replant. Also, certainly you could maintain ownership of a chunk of land, and live on it while leaving it largely undisturbed. And like minded people could do the same thing on land next to yours, and land next to that, etc, until you have a big area of land with a few small roads though it, that is largely undisturbed. Problem solved.
Radio spectrum, well, if the waves are clear, broadcast. If they aren't, your broadcast won't be very effective. It still leaves the issues of someone deliberately trying to jam or drown out your broadcast, but I would assert that you don't have the right to decree that your radio waves are king of a certain airspace. shrug
I think that's about it.
This makes sense, but you still need some way of preventing pillaging of the environment (for instance, overfishing in the ocean). If there's not government limiting how much you can catch, or what seasons you can catch it during, how does the community protect the long term viability of the resource? Shaming and reputation is one way. Blockchains can facilitate this by, for instance, creating completely trackable supply chains thereby making it easier for people to know whether what they are purchasing "complies" with society's values or not.
No. If someone overfishes the ocean, then there's no more fish. People will figure out something else to eat until the fish breed back to a higher population. Not to mention, what century are you living in? Aquaponics is a better investment than a boat.
I'm late to my own discussion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your approach is what I'd term "outcome-agnostic." You believe that the outcome of a societal structure is self-justified, and all outcomes are equally moral. So if the oceans are overfished and we cause mass extinctions of ocean critters, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It's justified by the fact that it happened.
I think you and I fundamentally disagree there. I view a world in which humans have caused mass extinctions as a worse world than one in which we haven't. Even shy of mass extinctions, I believe that it's both possible and desirable to avoid crashing fish populations and having to "wait till they breed back."
I'm pointing this out because I want the specifics of our disagreement to be crystal clear. We may or may not disagree about other things also, but if you're truly outcome-agnostic, then if we argue about those other things, we'll only be talking past each other.