StrayCatFrump

You are just trying to posture and distract from the fact that you asserted one idiot with a gun can protect private property (thus demonstrating that fact that no: you don't even know what private property is.), you ignorant, liberal moron.

First, you are a very unpleasant person

You being wrong makes me unpleasant now. LOL. Okay. I'd say that fuckers who jump into to defend ignorant liberals in arnarchist forums are unpleasant, personally.

Second, that’s a weirdly specific definition of private property.

It's the definition that's been used by leftists since the advent of capitalism, and perhaps before. Yes, liberals' attempts to disarm our language by using to mean anything that's not owned by the state has done a number on your brain, making it sound "weird" to ignorant, propagandized fools. Can't argue with that.

Last, if I need to exploit other peoples labor to derive value to have private property, and we’re using violence to do it, then we just invented slavery again.

Yes, capitalism is wage slavery. Correct. It has somewhat different characteristics from chattel slavery (which capitalism still uses when convenient, such as in the U.S. prison-industrial complex), but slavery it is nonetheless.

I was going to make a funny or meaningful comment, but fuck: look at this shithole full of liberals. Place is getting worse than Beehaw, TBH. Might as well be back on Reddit.

That's not what private property is. You can read my other comment if you care, or you can just go on feeling confident that you were right in swooping in and backing up the ignorant raving of some idiot liberal. I don't really care. 🤷

OK liberal.

You have no clue what private property even is, dude. It's not simply some kind of thing someone claims for their own. Private property is literally property which is used to exploit other people's labor and material needs. Your toothbrush is not private property. Your car is not private property. The house you live in is not private property. That land you rent to someone else just so they can live is private property. That factory you force people to work in so they can put food in their mouths because they have no access to land or other sources of sustenance...those are private property.

So yeah: good fucking luck protecting land and infrastructure you don't have the capacity to even use on your own with a gun. Again, NO: the capacity to do violence, alone, is NOT sufficient to protect private property. You need a lot more than that. Your ability to beat your wife doesn't make you able to patrol a large swath of agricultural land and make sure nobody encroaches on it. Your ability to shoot someone doesn't make you capable of keeping workers out of a factory that is rightfully their collective property by virtue of the value of the blood, sweat, and tears they used to build and run that factory, especially when they have the capacity to do violence themselves and there's no state to keep them from exercising it in self-defense.

You fucking ignorant dope.

A liberal who waves a red flag and pretends they aren't liberal. Often they call everyone else (including us) liberal. 😂 😉

Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence.

I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.

It's not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don't realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.

You're really bad at logic. "You can be violent without a government" does not imply you can necessarily protect private property without a government. Because being violent isn't enough to protect private property. Only certain forms of violence are (forms which you haven't done anything to show can be performed without a government).

As already pointed out, it absolutely will stop you. Also, try doing any of those things on land claimed by private entities such as capitalists, and watch how quickly the state's goons arrest and/or shoot you.

It's only "expected" to perform other services because its violence prevents us from doing those things apart from it.

Not all forms of violence are useful for protecting private property.

You refuse to do the labor needed for their hoarding. You should really learn about models of ownership-by-use. People just aren't capable of protecting/maintaining/using that much personally.