... Any initiation of violence for any reason is an authoritarian move. You cannot preserve personal property without the force of authority or retribution. FULL STOP. Socialism is to capitalism the same way libertarianism on this graph is to authoritarianism.
...
Just as you cannot legislate socialism, you cannot own anything without exercising force. That said, of the two grand experiments, the Soviets were a lot more successful at it than the current minarchist utopia of Somalia (this is partly mentioned tongue-in-cheek), which is an example of what happens when ownership of property has insufficient governmental force of authority to preserve it or prevent its usage as a tool of oppression. You can't really do one without the other.
You seem very hung up on government being the only entity that can use force or violence. Government by its very nature cannot use violence defensively, it can only initiate violence. What is government? Government is a monopoly on the use of violence in a given geographic area. Individuals can use force to defend their property against an aggressor, either directly or by way of hired or volunteer help (i.e. private security company, neighbor, etc.). Once you acknowledge what government is, and that non government individuals are capable of using defensive force against an aggressor (purse snatcher, thief, rapist, etc.) I think it will be less confusing for you.
Here is where you and Spork are both wrong about the ideas of socio-anarchism (I refuse to call myself a libertarian anymore because of the hijacking of the term by people specifically like yourself), the socialism is just as much a deliberate voluntary choice as the libertarianism is and is established through the same sort of social contract. It can be summed up nicely as what is yours is yours, and what is mine is yours. There is no need for any form of violence or any form of authoritarian regime to enforce this as it is driven by voluntary selflessness on both axes for the benefit of all, as a healthy community equally benefits the self. You cannot steal what you believe to be available for everyone to use and owned by nobody. It works on small scales, and has a history of working on small scales for millennia amongst groups of people who are of this mindset. What always spoils it is some greedy a**hole who wants more than others (either personal control or material goods) to the point of harming their fellow man. Sound familiar?
There's always an a**hole, and the larger a group you get together, the greater likelihood of there being at least one of these selfish a**holes. The only way to combat that is through human authoritarian force and the abolishment of communal property. Personal greed is always going to drive an increase in authoritarianism to combat it, and the only way to keep things in balance is to have the approximate equal value of authoritarian power exercised against a similar level of property rights (or vice versa if you want). Authoritarian violence and personal property go hand in hand, and one is a natural and human reaction to the imposition of the other.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems you are claiming socialism (what's yours is mine) in the current form in North America, does not require authoritarian violence. Let's take an example, the current authoritarian regime steals somewhere north of 25% on my income directly. I don't want that stolen from me, particularly while I'm still in teh debt reduction stage. You think the current authoritarian regime will not use violence against me if I voluntarily choose not to pay what they demand? It doesn't work that way. If I don't pay what they demand, the eventual conclusion is that they will either kill me or cage me, what I have not aggressed against anyone. Perhaps you're talking about some hypothetical socialist society, but the current socialist society is not voluntary, it is enforced at the barrel of a government gun.
Not you acknowledge corrupt power craving individuals exist who will exert control over others or steal their property. Any amount of that is harming their fellow man if it is not voluntary, as the only way to enforce it is with aggressive violence. You acknowledge that these people, sociopaths, exist and you want to consolidate them into a group called government that holds a monopoly on the use of violence against all individuals in a given geographic area.
You then claim that these sociopaths will protect individual property rights? We have this system now, how is it working? Right off the bat the sociopaths, authoritarian regime, claim ownership of 15%-50% of the fruits of your labor. It should not be a stretch for anyone here to understand that you trade time for money, which is trading your life for money. This is slavery, call it 15%-50% slavery or whatever you like, but the government essentially claims to own you and allow you to keep some amount of the fruits of your labor. So under the current socialist/fascist regime, you do not have self ownership. There's a pretty big strike against the authority you seem to be claiming is benevolent with regard to personal property.
Has anything ever been stolen from you? Did you go the the authorities and request help getting your property back or finding the thief and getting compensated for what was stolen? How well does that work under the current system? Even if you know exactly who stole your property and where it is, it's extremely difficult to get the current authoritarian regime to do anything about it. It is not their job, you are not the customer, and they have no incentive to recover your property or hold the thief liable for what was taken from you. If you are fortuante enough that the authorities capture the thief, then even more fortunate that in court you are awarded a judgement in compensation for your loss, you are extremely unlikely to receive anything from the thief. The current authoritarian regime will not use force or the threat of violence to ensure that you are compensated after a judgement is made. There is no incentive for that, but there is a much greater incentive for the current authoritarian regime to use violence to steal property from individuals who have committed no crime or harmed nobody. Examples of this are civil asset forfeiture (theft of money or other property arbitrarily with no trial or proof of a crime) and victimless crimes such as recreational drug use, purchasing sudafed, prostitution, gambling, etc.
With just those few examples it should be exceedingly clear that the current system you seem to advocate does not work as you claim.
...Like it or not, the natural result of the preservation of personal property and ownership is a concentration of huge sums of wealth and property owned by a small minority that results in things like mega-corporations, and that wealth cannot be preserved without an equal application of authoritarian force through government. Here-in lies the hypocrisy for people like yourself. You can no more realistically preserve the ownership of all your crap without the sprawling active force of big government to preserve it than you can dictate by force to other people to care for and love their neighbor as they love themselves.
Again, this is all irrelevance and makes no sense once you accept the fact that individuals can use defensive violence. You also fail to explain how these mega corporations you mention are eliminating wealth. Don't most here invest in these mega corporations and profit handsomely from it? Why would I need a sprawling active force of big government to protect me from these mega corporations? Apple is not going to invade my neighborhood and steal everyones wealth. Oh wait... (see what I did there?) But in all seriousness you have not explained exactly how the current (or your proposed) government regime of violence or sprawling active force of big government is protecting private ownership of property or who they are protecting that property from or why anyone would need them. Could you explain those things?
Which brings us to the question: what do you value more - your freedom or your private possessions? One by necessity must be sacrificed for the preservation of the other.
This is a false dichotomy.
Poll