\textbf{2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions}
Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and co provision rules requiring labor, material, and/or money.
Appropriators who violate operational rules arc likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both.
Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.
Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.
Consensus is a process where everyone should be able to weigh in equally on a decision, and no one should be bound by a decision they detest."
this boils doing in practice to: Everyone who feels they have something relevant to say about a proposal ought to have their perspectives carefully considered.
Everyone who has strong concerns or objections should have those concerns or objections taken into account and, if possible, addressed in the final form of the proposal.
3.1)during the discussion those with concerns may suggest friendly amendments to the proposal to address the concern, which the person originally bringing the proposal may or may not adopt
3.3)in the course of this the proposal might be scotched, reformulated, combined with other proposals, broken into pieces, or tabled for later discussion.
4.1) asking if there are any stand-asides. By standing aside one is saying “I don’t like this idea, and wouldn’t take part in the action, but I’m not willing to stop others from doing so”. It is always important to allow all those who stand aside to have a chance to explain why they are doing so.
4.2) asking if there are any blocks. A block is not a “no” vote. It is much more like a veto. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that it allows anyone in the group to temporarily don the robes of a Supreme Court justice and strike down a piece of legislation they consider unconstitutional; or, in this casein violation of the fundamental principles of unity or purpose of being of the group.{42},
Footnote {42} I should note that the usual language in Occupy Wall Street is that a block has to be based on a “moral, ethical, or safety concern that’s so strong you’d consider leaving the movement were the proposal to go forward”.
Saying someone owns a piece of the world obscures what is actually going on. Ownership is not a relationship between a person and a piece of the world. It is a relationship between a person and all other persons. It is a relationship that consists of the following threat: should someone else act upon this piece of the world, violence will be brought against them in order to cause them to desist.
When a state (or state-like entity) establishes a system of private property, all it really does is hand out violence vouchers to people who we call owners.
People do not rent property from other people. They trade their violence voucher over some piece of the world in exchange for the person they are renting from agreeing to waive their right to redeem their violence voucher over some other piece of the world for some period of time.
A rent can thus be described as the acquisition of a violence voucher in exchange for temporarily waiving a right to redeem a violence voucher. A rent is when you leverage threats to redeem your violence vouchers in order to acquire violence vouchers from others without giving any violence vouchers in return.
