So, the "anarchist solution" to the tragedy of the commons - the avoidance of centralized power - entails a majority of the population banding together and acting as some sort of agent, with the power to set rules and redistribute wealth? I see.
I think that you may be on to something here. It could have limited police powers and perhaps offer up and guarantee, a, I think we'll call it fiat trading systems based on dolloros (we'll call them). Also people can gather in small groups and elect a leader of sorts to travel to the town square and represent them so it won't be so chaotic when making decisions for the group...
No the anarchist solution is to remove the need for that pollution at all. Why frack when wind power works? Sure you don't get as much power but when the whole world isn't spending 1/5 of their day driving from home to office to modify spreadsheets, you'll find some power savings.
I don't think that's a fair characterization at all. To use a network analogy...
Central Planning: [1 Figure 1a]
Functioning Capitalism: [1 Figure 1b]
Anarchy: [1 Figure 1c]
The optimal design lies somewhere between the extremes. 1a seems to be an absorbing boundary condition, so we need stabilization mechanisms to keep the system running near optimal dispersion.
In the past, we had stabilization mechanisms like antitrust law, public jury trials for torts (as opposed to closed-door arbitration), and the tax code. All of these stabilizers have been severely degraded in the neoliberal era.
