>>21
That's only if you look at it from a market point of view. Still, you're not looking into the oppression that property as a meaning contains. The 'right to own' is the source of the power pyramid with the most people owning little at the bottom and vary few at the top with massive properties. That's nowhere near anarchy. As a system it has clear lines of power and control, hence, the subjects are not free, rather they have to play with the rules of the markets to gain access to resources.
Of course things are not black and white, and I'm not a closed minded person. I believe the issue of what can be property and what not could easily be solved democratically by an anarchist assembly. And of course two different assemblies could reach two different oppinions. In fact, that's what I love about direct democracy.
Personally I'm not an individualist, I'm a collectivist. Wealth is not the matter in anarchy, what matters is to bring down the things that give one person power over the other. End human-human oppression.