I watched the full debate here and Adam actually did a good job handling the question at the end which was cut out.
In the video, Adam appears to be honestly considering Sam’s point about how it would be violence to use force to remove an unwanted stranger entering your home.
The reality however is that the concept of property has a legitimate basis in reality. Evidently, we not only own ourselves but concerning private property, if one is currently in use of an item that no other individual has a claim to, it’s perfectly legitimate to any sensible human being that the said person owns that property. Property is how human beings resolve territorial disputes. To deny private property not only creates territorial disputes but is an untenable and impractical position. The matter however does have an element of subjectivity in that clearly an individual claiming ownership over vast areas of land or natural resources would be an illegitimate claim. Notwithstanding, there is an element of subjectivity in most moral concepts. For example regarding assault, their is a distinction between lightly patting a friend on the back versus slamming them in the head with your fists. The latter clearly being assault and the former being friendly behaviour.
I don't think even Sam believes he's not entitled to property as he argues he'd call the police if someone tried to rip his clothes from him. I find the very notion of 'no private property' to be so counter intuitive and disingenuous. What If you create something with your own mind or body? What if through technology you’re able to manifest your thoughts into physical matter or convert energy that you’ve created into a physical power source? The idea of someone proclaiming you are not entitled to property because it belongs to everyone is an absurd position. Even tribal societies would have basic respect for an individual using an item and would not claim ownership of something currently in use for doing so is universally recognised as act of aggression.
