>>44
Now That's a chalenging question. Most anarchists as far as I know are not (i'm not either). Many are though, so i will attempt to explain why.
The concept of private property has been abused to the point that everything you see outside your window is private property. The planet we all share has been cut into little pieces, sold, bought, exploited. It is actually hard to find an item that is not owned by somebody. This on it's own, as bad as it may sound to some, is not the root of the problem. The actual problem arises from the distribution of private property. The injusticaes that arise from this are immense and they reach the point to exclude people from resources as important as water in some cases. Also we see the amount of public space dramticaly decrease.
This makes some anarchists feel that the root of the problem is the private property itself. I don't share this view. I don't feel that the abolition of private property would solve many problems in today's world. Maybe in a perfect society made of god-like creature it would be fair but not for any society in today's world other than those that contain this within their culture (I think there have been property-less societies in some tribes of the pacific but i can't remember which ones. anyway, thay must have been alienated into our societies by now). I do believe there should be some control on what should be private property and what should be public, but i wouldn't trust a government to make such laws and enforce them. I would like to see such regulations arise from public assemblies after very long public discussion about what's fail and what's not. Stil i would only abide by those rules f I found them fair myself. For example i want my clothes to be my own and i wouldn't accept any authority (not even a public assembly) to force me to share them. A bit of an extreme example i guess but i used it to show that the true abolition of private property even by an anarchist assebly is totaly unrealistic. Still if I have enough I will gladly share and give things away to people in need like i always do anyway.
Therefore, although I recognize that there are massive problems that arise from private property, I don't believe it should be abolished altogether, rather that there should be regulations that limit what can and what cannot be privatised. For example I would fight with my own life against the privatisation of air (since this would be a life threatening situation anyway)but i do want my personal living space to be private.
And to answer
>>44 's question directly, the vast majority of anarchists are not against private property aquired by non exploitative means but some kinds of private property like <u>owning the only source of water in a dessert is exploitative on it's own</u>. There is no distinct line to seperate these two cases. It is up to the people to decide where this line lies. Also you might want to chech you info on anarchosyndicalism again as you seem to have missunderstood what they stand for. Anarchosyndicalists are against private property only for the means of production. Meaning that they want factories and farms to be controlled by the workers. They are not against private property. Please note that anarchosyndicalism is different from collectivist anarchism and from anarcho-communism. Have a look here if you can be bothered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism