In a recent exchange, someone told me that they have similar views to mine except that they do not believe in "private property". He referred to himself as a "left anarchist" (there are those seemingly mutually exclusive terms again!). I invited a discussion since this is such a bizarre concept to me. Sadly, I have yet to hear back. I wanted, and still want, clarifications. Does he mean any kind of private property or only real estate? Does that mean I can live in "his" house with him? Or at least set my tipi up in "his" yard if I want to live there? Can just anyone use "his" car if they wish to? What if I browse around "his" house and take what I think I need? Does he really mean that nothing can be owned? How can you consume food if you can't own it? Where does that leave the foundation of libertarianism: that we each own our own bodies and lives? Can we even say "my own body" if we hold this belief? What would make someone come to this rather odd conclusion?
To be honest, I have always considered this type of argument to be the whinings of someone who doesn't own everything they want, so they declare that they are against private property for everyone. It is what makes a communist a communist. I concede that I could be wrong. I would like to own a lot more than I do, especially real estate. I feel it would be phony of me to be against private property.
