I find the distinction between personal and private property arbitrary and lacking any real basis. As I see it, all forms of property is justified in the same way.

But just for the sake of the argument: If private property is inherently violent because, if attacked, you might need to use force to defend it, then why isn't "personal" property violent in the very same way; for, if attacked, you might need to use force to defend such property too? Even a person's right to his or her own body might need to be defended by force, so even this right would come out as inherently violent on this criterion.

To adress the point about historical injustice, consider that you and me find out that your great, great, great, great grandmother stole the land upon which your house now stands from my great, great, great, great grandfather. Does this mean that the land must now be handed over to me, or that you need to pay me compensation? No. You cannot be held responsible for something that someone else did, even if a case could be made that you somehow benefited from it. What your ancestor did to mine was an injustice, but trying to correct that by forcing you to pay me now would only add more injustice. When both the victims and the perpetrators of a past injustice are no longer with us, then we have to let bygones be bygones.