I feel like we're pretty close to agreement here. So, we just have to fine tune some confusions. When I say 'private property' it is different than 'personal property". I realize I haven't been making this distinction enough. So, I hope to clear the air here (as your comments are interchanging them).
A recent conversation I was having about this with 
". When I refer to homesteading, I am talking about Rothbard's explanation in "The Ethics of Liberty" wherein a human can own land by homesteading it and utilizing it. For example, growing crops or mining for minerals, etc. Obviously there is a limit as to how much a person can physically homestead a property. According to this idea, it would be impractical for one wealthy person to homestead thousands of square kilometers as he cannot possibly maintain such a vast swath of land. That is why Queen Elizabeth has no moral claim on the vastly pristine lands of Canada. She is not working or utilizing that land at all, so how can she claim that it is Crown land?
A good example I like to use of homesteading in practice is the case of an outdoor concert. As the first to arrive I select an area of grass to sit on. It appears that I "own" the entire park. As others arrive, they naturally pick another spot on the grass, leaving me with less. This continues until the entire park is filled with people all claiming their own spot. I, as the first, cannot possibly argue that the entire grassy area is mine as my butt is not that big. It's interesting how humans can do this without some authority dictating where to sit and how much space to take up; it just happens naturally. Of course, this is just an example of the natural order of homesteading as neither I, nor the other concert goers, own the park, but I think you get the idea."
So this ties in with the ideas of property.
"I do not agree that the idea of property is somehow inherently violent. To the contrary, it is those that violate a person's legitimate property that commit violence against that person. When someone tries to take away something that rightfully belongs to you,"
What is legitimate? Is the example above legitimate use of that space, I say yes. But under capitalism, someone could go to that park first, claim it as "unowned" then turn around and charge the rest of the people to sit in it! Opposed to free and willing use of a free resource!
I feel this issue is even harder to detail the nuances a quick search of what is capital brought up.
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
How self-serving... What I'm advocating for is not even acknowledged as a possibility. Because the Idea of ownership is so pervasive in our culture our definitions routinely state that nature is either owned by the state or owned by private interests (as if these are our only choices)... What I am saying is that nature owns itself. We have a 'right' to relate to nature from simply being born here and a right to meet our needs through relating to nature, but we do not have a 'right' to 'own' nature and to gain personal benefit from said 'ownership' and through 'ownership' restrict other beings access to said nature.
We can freely exchange goods and labor all we want! I love that. If your definition of capitalism is a free and voluntary exchange than so be it! I'm on board. However, Capitalism by another definition is:
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods"
The ownership of capital! I realize that this idea is extremely pervasive in our society. That the notion of not owning something is hard to conceive. But, there have been and still are vast cultures and societies operating without this notion.
Think about it, we may plant a seed, but it is nature that causes that seed to grow into a fruit to feed us! We didn't go in there and transfer the sunlight into carbon and pull up the nutrients out of the dirt with physical labor. Yet, our society with our hubris sit here and pretend that we 'own' it because we "mixed our labour" with it!
Please don't confuse me for advocating for a state (as we see it even remotely today) I'm not. In fact, without ownership of the commons, there would be scant reason to have a state at all! All we would have is organizations of willing participants working together and sharing in the abundance that nature is, not hoarding and owning our way to poverty, war, and destruction of our natural world.
So to clarify, capitalism is not 'free exchange'. Capitalism is also not our plutocracy we see today. Capitalism in its purest form is the idea of private ownership over nature, and the ability to exploit this ownership for personal gain. There is not a single society in our dominant cultures lineage that details a culture of 'non-ownership' so, we pretend it is 'human nature' and justify our way on through. However, it doesn't take long to study other cultures that lack this notion of 'ownership' to learn how we can radically improve our systems!
Hence is my approach with the transition system of ON (Our NeighbourGood) it works on both sides of understanding to expand this sense of ownership to the whole instead of the self...
"I do not agree that the idea of property is somehow inherently violent."
I think I have been over this with you... So, we have yet to clarify.
Do you think a man coming in and claiming ownership over land that is in use by 1000's of people and removing said people from the land "because they don't 'own' it" is violent? That is the root of our entire capitalistic system today. Taking peoples ability to live (access to resources and land) and removing them (or adding in barriers). Is this not a form of violence?
Edit: I just read your other post, but feel as this one sums up both. However;
"In principle, it is possible on my view to own a forest, and also to sell bottled water. But such things need to be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the particulars of each case. Of course, I agree that if someone was already using a stream, it would not be okey to treat it as unowned and up for grabs."
"if someone was already using a stream, it would not be okey to treat it as unowned and up for grabs." (second for emphasis)
Life is ALWAYS using these life-giving systems to live. Therefore, the simple notion of owning them will ALWAYS impede on their life. This was more obvious with humans before the conquests of capitalism (ownership). Conquests are ONLY possible if you're able to claim ownership! If you bottled a stream for personal use. SO be it, but once you bottle that stream and sell it en-masse for personal gain you are taking more than you need, and infringing on others rights as that stream is reduced (and dried up in many cases). This is the distinction.
RE: War, taxation, and ultimately government itself will eventually go the same way as slavery and human sacrifice