Freedomain Radio

It seems that they believe "need" is the basis of legitimate ownership.

The omnipresence of this viewpoint, even among anarchists, annoys me to no end.  It's so emotionally cherished, yet anyone with a functioning brain can see that the fact of scarcity nullifies this as even being coherent, much less possible.

Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB3.html#secb31

They always use those definitions when I ask them if I can take their t-shirt. Yet they can't rigorously define it. "Is a shovel a possession or property?" is enough to start a lenghty and boring discussion at which point I usually leave.