I find the distinction between personal and private property arbitrary and lacking any real basis. As I see it, all forms of property is justified in the same way.
But just for the sake of the argument: If private property is inherently violent because, if attacked, you might need to use force to defend it, then why isn't "personal" property violent in the very same way; for, if attacked, you might need to use force to defend such property too? Even a person's right to his or her own body might need to be defended by force, so even this right would come out as inherently violent on this criterion.
To adress the point about historical injustice, consider that you and me find out that your great, great, great, great grandmother stole the land upon which your house now stands from my great, great, great, great grandfather. Does this mean that the land must now be handed over to me, or that you need to pay me compensation? No. You cannot be held responsible for something that someone else did, even if a case could be made that you somehow benefited from it. What your ancestor did to mine was an injustice, but trying to correct that by forcing you to pay me now would only add more injustice. When both the victims and the perpetrators of a past injustice are no longer with us, then we have to let bygones be bygones.
Sure, but millions of people die today because of lack of access created by ownership... There are still victims!
Grandpa didn't steal private property from grandma (your example would be personal property, one I might agree with).
What I'm talking about is 'grandpa' who stole private property from ALL of us, those who were alive that day and those who ever will be alive during his reign of Illegitimate ownership. (meaning there are still victims from this crime)
(What? That's not what I said.)
Private property is inherently violent as it creates inequality, which grows to extreme inequality with time (what we see today). It's violent to force others off land that they lived on for their whole lives. It's violent to limit my access to clean water, it's violent to destroy a mountain for profit, it's violent to pollute a river so I can no longer drink from it, it's violent to poison the earth, it's violent to destroy a whole forest and KILL every living being in it. All of these are only capable with a false notion of "private property" (the 'i own it so I can do what I want' mentality) the distinction between the two is massive. Personal property is relating to the world to meet our needs (not our greeds).
Regardless, I feel like we are both just making the same points :) Also, (based on your responses) I feel like I am doing an awful attempt at relating to you my thoughts... I would love to really connect with you on grounds where we agree, and areas where we can creatively build on ideas, not philosophically argue about them!
Agree to disagree then :)
I think that this is a very important debate, and I hope to write about many of these topics in the future. But setting the philosophical issues aside for now and focusing on practical implications, I have a much more positive view about the consequences of private property. Indeed, I think that private property together with free exchange and free enterprise is what makes possible the incredible rise in prosperity that our world has experienced. Poverty is declining: http://www.humanprogress.org/static/2579
Also, when it comes to environmental issues private ownership of natural resources is beneficial, not harmful. See for example the research of the Property and Environment Research Center: https://www.perc.org/research
I'm discussing completely new cultures here. More complete than the minor changes from feudalism to capitalism. These drastic upgrades to our cultures operating system are going to be mandatory for the societies of the future to finally progress past the same tired issues our dominant culture has been experiencing since inception 2k + years ago!
Poverty is only a metric created post-private ownership.
For millennia people had a high quality of life living off the land and meeting their needs fully outside the economic system (i'm using Africa as an example as it is one still taking place today as the Americas would be my favoured example its more in history).
Today, they are being forced into this 'private ownership paradigm' and now are considered "in poverty" the fact that our economic system is able to alleviate small amounts of problems it created is not a benefit of that system when compared with others.
However, 'poverty' or not the quality of life went down for people who made $0 to when they made $3. Our economic system would look at this $3 gain as a benefit "poverty is declining" we proclaim. But, quality of life is also declining. So, what is the real value to be measuring here. Economic benefit (mostly to the wealthy) or an increase in quality of life for all.
The measure of poverty is a self-serving metric of a flawed system.
Again, everything stated there is within the old paradigm of thinking. Within the context of this cultures economic and political systems... This data would only be relevant if it compared viable alternatives as comparison.
Also, in case you missed it, I actually had written a short blog on private ownership and the environment...
Is Capitalism Responsible For Environmental Destruction? A short thought exercise!
Destroying our natural world only happens because there is value to be made doing so. Which only is possible in the context of private ownership.
It will probably not come as a surprise that I think your analysis is deeply mistaken. This is a highly romanticised image of early human societies. There were some benefits with the hunter-gatherer life style, like their political egalitarianism, but that they enjoyed a high quality of life is a myth.