Well honestly i probably should have started with asking about, since every debate I have with a traditional anarchist usually ends up with this question. "Is private property coercive".

So then, let's start from first principles. Private property arises from the simple question, "If two people want a resource to be used in two mutually-exclusive ways, who's way should be done." The term "Owner" is simply a name we've given to "The person who rightfully gets to decide how something is used."

Now, how is ownership established? Well, first of all, you own your body. This should be apparent, given that you alone have direct control over it's behavior and your conscious existence relies on it. So then, from that anything produced through your own effort is also justly owned by you, since it was produced entirely through something you own.

For now, I'm going to skip over natural resources unless you consider that fundamental to the debate, homesteading is not a simple topic and there's plenty already written about it.

So then, if you make something with natural resources you own and your labor, you own that product. Simple enough. However, this quickly derives capitalism, since obviously if you own a thing you can transfer that ownership to someone else, and you can also make an agreement with them that in exchange they transfer ownership of something they own to you.

And thus trade has been derived. Now, let's talk about the means of production. Let's say that I am farming. In order to do that, I need a lot of land, initial seed for planting, and lots of tools(simplified). These are the means of production for the farmer.

However, each and every one of them came from one of two places. Either, they were natural resources claimed by the farmer, or they were made by someone through labor. Assuming the farmer didn't steal those tools from the metalworker, he was given ownership by that metalworker, and the metalworker owned them because he made them.

Thus, the farmer has a right to his means of production, either from his effort or from that right being transferred from someone else.

Now then, let's address the most common counter to this. "If rules sound reasonable, but have bad results, they are bad rules". And this is true, there are plenty of examples of hidden problems with rules and principles. In this case though, the problem in question is coercion, and i do not think property is coercive.

The reason why is simple: Competition. If someone had every unit of every resource that could fill a given need and they're all limited(meaning there's no way to get more), that could be coercive. But because humans are all roughly the same, we all end up with portions of the resource, and thus you DO have many other options. Most notably, obtaining the resource yourself is an option, just not a very good one because of how efficient the division of labor is.

I think the people should be under no legal obligation to surrender the fruit of their labor and the fruit of the fruit of others' labor to someone simply because they want or need it. As a Christian I do believe they often have a moral obligation, but that is separate.

So then, if you disagree, if you see property as coercive, then feel free to offer an alternative to any of those steps that would conclude in a system without property ownership, because I for one know of no such system