The only way to protect property is by force. At that point you're talking about imposing your concept of your property on others. To me that sounds immoral, but I am not an "anarcho-capitalist".
That said, we still can't really agree on cooperating unless you believe in private personal residences. You mentioned revolutionary socialists and we're talking about anarchy, and I think we have much common ground in taking back the means of production for the local communities through the institution alternatives you've mentioned.
But again my concern is my privacy of living. I am currently in an apartment alone. How I engage my society in regards to living doesn't really matter (currency exchange, work exchange, basic right) as long as I have some rights to lock my apartment door, protect myself from invaders (which you could argue might not exist with a different economic system), and have peace of mind regarding my property, which again, while I lean heavily to the left, do not agree with the idea that ownership of anything be not permitted. Works of art, Furniture, Important tools related to my craft, etc -are all something I believe shouldn't be so easily commonized, lest we all fight to the death for individual rights.
Does anyone not believe in a right to personal possessions? I mean, honestly, do you really think there are unreconstructed Bolsheviks and kibbutznikim around?
That said, I'd love your opinion on taxes, volunteerism, and force. I think many anarchists are utopian statists who don't realise how important it is for an anarchist society to oppose the creation of central authorities and the formation of "too big to fail institutions". Love your thoughts on that.
1) Any land covered by something valuable that you "produced" yourself is your property. A house, a corn field, a copper mine, etc. But land in a state of nature is not. For example, 10 acres of forest in a state of nature would not be your property, because you haven't "mixed your labour" with it.
2) Even that 10 acres of forest can be your property, and you get to control (access to) it, because you need to know that you will get to benefit from any value you produce with that forest, even if it takes some time to get started, let alone "materialize" that value. Maybe you're planning to build an amusement park, but need to figure stuff out first, and make sure you'll have everything you need before starting the project. Maybe that will turn sour, and then you'll switch to some other goal with the forest. But if you don't have the right to control (access to) the forest before you do something with it, then you just won't do anything with it because you have no guarantee of getting to benefit from the value you produce. The latter case would be a loss to other people too, because something they'd benefit from (even if in exchange for a fee) would not come to be.
I think both 1 and 2 make sense.
But if you acquire property legitimately, then there's no problem with it, even if it's not constantly in your possession, or occupied by you personally. Anything else would just not make sense. For example, if you park your car somewhere and go shopping, will the car cease to be your property just because you're not in it?
On a fundamental level, property can be thought of as "value you want to control". Something has value, and you get to benefit from it, because you've either produced the value yourself, or you've acquired it through a voluntary exchange (or contract etc). You build a house, the house has value as a dwelling, and you want to benefit from the house by either living in it or selling it to someone else.
Or, it's defined by property rights? But hey, why not make things more complicated than they actually need to be?
Point to the fundamental particle of property rights, please.
Oh, wait, it's your gun.
Taxes = Theft, Government = the Monopoly on Violence, and Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power. Your thoughts?
Agreed.
>> Oh, and don't forget tracking/passport/entry visas because of taxes
Yep, it's about taxes in the sense that Tax Farms want to retain their cattle, so they make it difficult for the cattle to leave, while still maintaining an illusion of freedom. Even a complete sheep would realize he's a slave if he weren't free to leave "his" country.
>> Oh and don't forget mandatory "collective" (but NOT state) schooling.
Mandatory collective schooling, but imposed on everyone by something else than the state? .. That doesn't sound right either. Anything that is based on aggressing against people is immoral.
>> Taxes = Theft
I'm fine with "robbery", "rape", and "theft" and so on. But extortion is more accurate.
>> Government = the Monopoly on Violence
Yes, and thoroughly immoral.
>> Capitalism (which is separate from the free market) = Wage Slavery and too much power
This is where we disagree, it seems. You seem to be referring to Crony-Capitalism, or "Crapitalism". Corporations buy State power and using it to their own benefit, and of course, that will continue for as long as there is power to be bought. If there's nothing to bribe, then you can't bribe.
But in reality, Capitalism is just what people do in their pursuit of personal gain: voluntary exchanges, contracts, agreements, and investments, etc. All backed by respect for property rights, of course. Without property rights, there would be just about no wealth in the world, because no one could expect to benefit from any value they might produce.
The absence of coercion ~ a free market ~ freedom ~ Capitalism. They all go hand in hand.
Humanity has gone through 6000 years of history under various forms of government, without any minarcho-capitalist regime ever coming to power in a broad domain. Somehow we've done just fine without it.