>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.