I've heard the "personal effects" argument in anarchist Facebook debate groups (I'm in several), and it always breaks down for me. I prefer Jeffrey Tucker's perspective on property rights which he talked about recently at PorcFest. Here's one of his articles which I liked:
https://tucker.liberty.me/the-defense-of-private-property-aristotle-and-mises/
The absence of ownership, then, leads to the disregard of one’s own life and the life of others.
As for defending land rights, that's definitely a more sticky topic. Go back far enough and you'll always find violence. That said, go back further than that and you'll also find non-humans, so we have to be careful to avoid a naturalistic fallacy as well. And yes, I get that agriculture may have been bad for humans, leading to The State and to war, but we can't throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.
Okay, @bacchist, you made me do it. Let's have a full discussion of where morality comes from over here: https://steemit.com/philosophy/@lukestokes/where-does-your-morality-come-from
Thank you, as well! It's been a healthy discussion.
I found a lot to take issue with in Tucker's article, but I'll just comment on bit that you quoted. It relies on an argument from Aristotle that is really quite absurd on its face.
He is making a defense of the idea that women and children are property of men. The alternative that he is defending against is the prospect of "having women and children common." This supposes that women and children can be nothing more than property in one form or another, that they are objects or tools to be used by men as they see fit. He defends the idea of private ownership of women and children on the basis that a man couldn't regard them tenderly unless they were considered his property.
I think that it's a rather sad way of looking at the world.
And it's far from necessary to base social relationships in terms of ownership and objectification. We have knowledge of a much wider range of adaptive strategies than Aristotle was even capable of considering. Cultures throughout the world employ many different configurations of how kinship and descent are organized.
The framing of social relationships in terms of ownership of property is most commonly found in those societies in which there is a strong state with an active military, and whose economic system is based on slavery or bondage in one form or another. This isn't the result of a thought experiment, this is empirical evidence, historical record.
I completely fail to see how this view of the world can be advocated by anyone who favors freedom.
(Replying to @bacchist)
An important point regarding human ownership:
I know for certain Tucker isn't advocating slavery here. Private ownership is...
and
I agree that:
All that said, I probably should explore more of the ideas behind "personal" property verses "private" property. The arguments I've seen so far in the Facebook groups I've mentioned have not been very compelling, but I always like challenging myself. Thanks again for the dialogue!