Can you propose any alternative system that doesn't involve the concept of property that manages to avoid violence?

Broadly speaking, demand is unlimited and supply is limited. With these two as a given, violence is essentially inevitable. Property near as I can tell, is a cultural tool that minimizes violence and maximizes supply.

Only when there is abundance outstripping demand of a population, is violence avoidable. A couple million people spread across North and South America 600 people enjoyed abundance, relatively speaking. 7 billion people spread across 7 continents is an entirely different scenario, and one where violence is unavoidable.

Violence is inherent to living in our civilized, city-building way of life. That doesn't mean that property isn't a system for regulating violence. It is. We allow the state to monopolize the right to violence and entrust the state with the responsibility of settling property disputes in a legal framework so that we don't immediately resort to violence.

An alternative system that avoids violence is not living the way we live. That ship sailed tens of thousands of years ago though. Too late now. In our current state we just have violence and systems for regulating it.

Yeah, I generally agree with everything you've said. And no, I can't propose any alternative system with those requirements. I'm not even sure if it's possible by definition.

Smart Contracts? https://www.ethereum.org/

I haven't seen opinion polls, but I doubt that's a widely held view. Why should people conform to your unusual position on property, as opposed to the mainstream one?

Personally, I quite like owning things that are mine. The cost, that other people can own things that are theirs and not mine, seems well worth it.

>Why should people conform to your unusual position on property, as opposed to the mainstream one?

That's a nice fallacy you've got here, and that would imply that his opinion is actually uncommon around people who have studied the subject (spoiler : it's not).

>Personally, I quite like owning things that are mine.

Possession and property are not the same thing.

If you interpret "property is violence" to mean that property is maintained by organizations willing to use violence - I.e. That something is "my property" because I can appeal to a police system who will help me defend, retain, or regain possession of it, then that's obviously true. I expect nobody disagrees with that. If that is the interpretation you're trying to defend then I have no objection beyond an arched eyebrow at something trivial being obfuscated to appear objectionable.

The interpretation I made, and challenged, is that property is violence. I.e. Owning things is violent towards other people.

Owning thing isn't violent but property is about a lot more than "owning things".

I'm not making a moral point. And it's not an opinion, nothing in my explanation is outside of trivially observed reality.

I'm just trying to dispel the idea that capitalism (as we experience it, or otherwise) isn't maintained through violence. It very well is more pleasant for most people than feudalism, but they both perpetuate themselves through violence.

Parent comment didn't lay forth a good argument, but I think there is something to be said for the societal cost of people owning investment capital. However, there is also something to be said for the benefit of incentives. It's important to balance these factors, for example by making capital gains tax progressive and raising the rate for high earners.

Property is a system for regulating (hopefully reducing) violence). I'm quite sure that is a widely held view.

I'm curious to understand how you've decided that your desire to take someone else's property makes it a trivial truth that only violence prevents you from having the natural right to take it.

I never suggested such a thing. Natural rights don't exist. That's just something some people make up. So what prevents me from taking someone else's stuff, if I really wanted it?

The same thing that prevents you from killing people that you really don't like, I guess? I assume you don't do it because you are at least a half-decent human being, and not because of the threat of violence. Same with taking property.

discredited rhetorical technique. you can do better.