1) Acknowledgement of {personal, with exceptions in regards to land}property rights and self ownership
2) adherence to the non-aggression principle
Would you call a starving person taking food to feed themselves a violent act? If so, you are a fool and not worth debating. If not, you have just forfeited your entire argument about property rights in a society of non-aggression.
Taking property (inanimate objects) is not violence. Hurting human beings is violence. Letting human beings starve is violence. Letting human beings die of exposure is violenceI appreciate your passion (though I ignored the wall of copy/paste) but I think you are tripping up on your own semantics. Lets just go according to the dictionary acceptance for some commong words.
According to the dictionary inanimate is lifeless.
An apple is alive. is taking it and eating it thereby violence in your definition?
Here is Violence in dictionary. (using dictionary.com for quick reference)
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
Letting someone starve isn't violence. Preventing them from reaching for food may be violence, but it depends if force is enacted on the person as a form of prevention. Watching someone starve may be selfish, but what if I or my daughter are starving as well?
What most people forget is the complexity involved in a decision when a third party is introduced and the effect that has on single/two party decisions from that point on.
Using the starving person as an example. If I stand in front of an apple so that another who is starving may not eat, because I am saving it for my own starving child then am I being violent? By your definition, someone eating the apple so that my child will starve is violent. Therefore I accept the violent act that will slay my daughter and do nothing. Then letting my child starve is a violencet act against my daughter. It's a catch 22. No matter if I stand aside or defend the apple I am being violent.
Living according to your definition of violence I'm forced to consider the act that causes me the least amount of grief. I can't take much time with this decision or I will loose out. Coupled with the inevitablity of violence it's now pointless to avoid it. Therefore from this point on, whether there is a 3rd part involved or not I know I should not measure my action based on violence, since I will waste time and be faced with grief over a quicker thinker. I am now justified in tackling each situation not by how long it takes to reach a forgone conclusion + whether or not it will cause me grief, but simply whether or not it will cause me greater grief.
Take the kind out of equation and change the apple to some seeds. We're both still starving. I want to plant the seeds so there will be more to eat. The other person just wants to eat the seeds. It will reach the same conclusion.
Like I said before, being an anarchist (to me) is more an exercise in self restraint that is devoid of faith in societal structures. It is not about power in anyone's hands. It is about not exercising power on others.