I've read a good bit on property rights but reading doesn't mean a lot. Logic dominates. People could write papers all day on how 1 + 1 = 3 but I don't need to read them to know they are wrong. Just as someone who is claiming that everything belongs to everyone equally is clearly incorrect without having to read their essay since I know through logic that that is impossible.

You never answered any of my questions. I can demonstrate the logical impossibility of group ownership. It is interesting that people have those ideas but they are irrelevant really.

I haven't tried to make any statements on anarchism I am just speaking about logical necessity.

Wow, do you have reading to do. Look up Wikipedia for "libertarian socialist."

You don't know the history of property, you've never read any criticism of property rights, you don't know the types of anarchism that exist, and yet you think you can make authoritative statements on property and on types of anarchism.

I'm sorry, but you need knowledge before you can criticize. What you're doing is nay-saying, not criticizing.

There is no such thing as collective ownership and free market. You aren't an anarchist you are a communist.

Suppose there is collective ownership and two people want to use the same property for different purposes…. How does that work in a free market? Suppose a man finds a piece of metal and fashions it into a hammer, who has a right to use the hammer?

"Why do you believe that someone who does not produce is entitled to profits?"I don't believe that.

Private ownership is needed to efficiently allocate resources.

Why do you believe that someone who does not produce is entitled to profits?

I'm not an anarchist.

Property isn't theft, doesn't matter what Proudhon says.

Semantics…

How is it a tangent? You claimed that commons don't work. They do.

"There is nothing more efficient and productive than the free market(Individuals making decisions about how to use their property and savings), that is a fact."

Agreed! Then why are you against commons?

"I don’t know anything about the Zapatistas or anything like that."

You're an Anarchist and you don't know about the current Zapatista resistance to the Mexican government? Why don't you read up about it?

"Collectivism not property is theft – you have it backwards."

Nope. Property is theft. (someone hasn't read his Proudhon either)

"Hierarchy is not a requisite for property."

I said "hierarchy is property," not "property is hierarchy." Property is a requisite for hierarchy.

There is nothing more efficient and productive than the free market(Individuals making decisions about how to use their property and savings), that is a fact. You have some strange definition of capitalism that sounds like imperialism or mercantilism – you are describing capitalism like 1984 does, "the capitalists".

By commons I was referring to just the collective ownership of property by everyone – i.e., every rock, tree, fish, etc. are equally owned by everyone. I don't know anything about the Zapatistas or anything like that.

Collectivism not property is theft – you have it backwards. Hierarchy is not a requisite for property.

You just posited that a whole method of organization "doesn't work," "falls apart and is inefficient." Don't you think you should know a bit about it before saying that?

Did you know that the self-managed businesses in Argentina are more productive than when they were owned by a capitalist? People who actually have a hand in a business, or any other organization or end product, are more motivated and know how to make their own job more efficient. They are efficient, they are producing, they are not "falling apart," and it does work.

We don't need property owners. We don't need masters. We need our right of self-determination to be recognized as equal human beings, and property is the exact opposite of that: property is theft, and hierarchy is property.