"I think a self-described ancom would answer that as soon as you built the conveyor belt, it became communal property."
That makes sense. And then whatever I do to claim ownership on the property is me initiating the violence on the collective.
Their issue then, I think, is that it's totally subjective when specifically something can be identified as "conveyor belt" or whatever would qualify as communal property.
(When I have a wooden peg, it's fine. Maybe I can build it into a table. Maybe I can put rubber on top of it. When exactly it becomes a conveyor belt seems completely arbitrary.)
Like at the end of the day it just seems so inside out that I'd have "my" property and then as I do things with it, somewhere along the way it morphs into no longer mine because of what exactly I did with it.
"I think I can explain it. Whereas ancaps generally consider anarchism to be more-or-less synonymous with voluntaryism, ancoms do not. To them, anarchism is the "logical" outcome of Marxist communism. They consider themselves communists first, and anarchists second. In fact, there is a growing trend among them to self-label as "communist anarchists" in an attempt to put the most important descriptor first. In order to reach the anarchism, they have to go through revolution and seizing the means of production and eliminating their philosophical detractors and a bunch of other steps that could not feasibly be done in a voluntary way. Also, they object to voluntaryism on the grounds that it is predicated on the concepts of self-ownership, which they believe to be impracticable, and property rights, which they believe to be unjust."
That makes sense too and sheds a lot of light on their attitude.
It's always weird to me how anyone could be opposed to voluntarism, like how could that possibly grind your gears.
I guess it makes sense tho, like if you see radical force as the only way to get the outcome you want, you'd have to be.
I think often they probably project the issues in the world today onto "capitalism" and "freedom" (when really it's a function of statism/violence), and so that's how they end up with this backwards view that they need to be violent and coercive in order to make things peaceful and egalitarian.
Really they should just shun the violence that currently exists.
Thanks for your answer.