Or any private property at all. I mean why does someone have the right to say I can or can't go somewhere.

Why do you have the right to say you can or can't do something? Where do you get the right to go or stay? Why would your right to go wherever you want... override someone else's right to have a private space that excludes you?

Because on the whole we (culture/country/city) all agree that it's more important to keep strangers and unwanted people/property out of our private areas (and back it up with the righteous use of the state's monopoly on violence) than it is to give everyone free reign. It's a matter of sovereignty and community and fear really. It would be great if everyone could be trusted to have good intentions, but we've had to learn the hard way that that strategy doesn't pan out when you have hundreds of millions of people all crammed together.

In my home country, which isn't cram packed with hundreds of millions people though, everyone has the right to go/travel/camp anywhere on private property as long as that area is designated as wilderness (meaning pretty much anywhere that isn't a developed or agriculture area). - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

While that sounds lovely, it will never fly in a Protestant flavored bureaucracy, sadly... Too much need for an expectation of control and submission. Too much uncomfortable feelings around uncertainty and leisure.

I recently bought Proudhon's "What is Property?". I'm sure it's going to be an interesting read.

Is property theft or is property liberty? Proudhon's nineteenth century opinion is itself conflicted.

I think any attempt to logically deduce absolute arguments for or against property is doomed. It's just a convention made by a society or any other group of people. You could just put everything including the things everyone produces in a public pool and everyone can use or consume bits and pieces probably according to some rules. Or you assign an owner to everything by some rules who then has special rights to decide about what happens to the things he owns. Or any combination of both extremes.

I guess we ended up with property because it is the system that was easier to realize or caused less issues but I see no way in which there could be any fundamental truth behind the concept of property.

Regardless of your concepts of property someone has to be the arbiter of disputes, which leads back to the need for a formal system for dealing with property.

You can of course always widen the definition of a word to capture anything. Let's for example say all cars are in a public pool. If you sit in the driver's seat you can use the car until you leave the seat. You could now say that the car is your property while you are sitting in the driver's seat or you could say that all people own all the cars. Neither matches the common usages of property well. But you are of course right, it is a resource allocation problem and it will only work well if there are commonly accepted and enforced rules, but there is no need for this system to resemble our current system and understanding of property.

I think yours is an interesting point, though of course it's been voteslammed.

There is a difference though between private property and freedom of movement--you might want to clarify that.

It makes sense, for example, that the bicycle I'm currently riding can't be commandeered by somebody else...at the same time, if somebody cuts across my lawn, it shouldn't be trespassing.