An exchange with an anarcho-capitalist

Says an enlightened commentator:

Private property is dependent on the existence of the State.
Without a state, who is to say that fancy car of yours isn't MY fancy car? [sic; cars are actually personal property]
Why do you think the state even exists in the first place? Without capital, there is no reason for the state to exist.

Says the anarcho-capitalist

The lock on it, the car alarm that will go off and the bullet in my chamber all disagree with who's what is really who's.

Says me:
The anarcho-capitalist's point doesn't actually rebut the original argument. What if the other guy is holding the gun instead? Is he suggesting that possession of property simply boils down to whoever can marshal the most force in defending or taking it? If that's the case, all we have then is rule by warlords and a tyranny of the strong over the weak.

At some point people would need to agree to collectively defend and protect the notion of private (non-personal) property, which seems philosophically contradictory, to say nothing of the impracticality of a landlord asking his tenants to defend his exclusive ownership of their building (possibly with their own lives) while still paying rent and yet without granting them any actual ownership stake in exchange. I'd almost say that sounds like feudalism.

Ultimately, it comes down to the difference between personal and private property, where the latter is property used solely by people who don't own it (e.g., a factory or office), and the fruits from such use flow back to the owners. It's one thing to actually live in the building you own. It's another to extract money from people who need to use it (e.g., to live there) simply because you already possessed the wealth to buy it in the first place; i.e., to use capital as a wealth-yielding instrument in and of itself, requiring no actual labor on your part and no direct (personal) involvement with said asset. The former case constitutes personal property while the latter constitutes private property.

As one of the 95% who do not own for a living, which would risk your life for — your home, or your corporate employer's office park? This reasoning can show how the essence of capitalism is impossible without the centralized threat of violence, whether on the part of the state or private-sector enforcers.