Christian teachings support anarcho capitalism over social anarchism

Outline and Specification.Before providing the evidence of my contention it will be necessary to outline specifically the anarcho capitalist position. Anarcho capitalists take four views in regards to property rights. (1) Previously unowned property may come to be acquired through homesteading.(2) Once this has occurred, the property may only transfer hands through trade, gift, or renouncement by the owner. (3) If someone takes without consent the property of the owner, then this is aggression against the owner. (4) The only excusable act of violence is in response to a previous act of aggression. And (5), the owner of property which is stolen has a legitimate claim against the thief which justifies the pursuit of restitution. The view can be more fully summarized here[1].Contention. The Temple Scene and Property Rectification.“Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it ‘a den of robbers"[2].Interpreting this passage will prove necessary in discerning any propertarian leanings expressed in the Bible because of the two main actions evident in the passage. (A) Jesus exacted violence against some people and (B) He claimed that they were at that point engaged in stealing. These two aspects of the passage are in accordance with (3), (4), and (5) of the outlining of anarcho capitalist property theory. It is in accordance with (3) in that private property is conceived as an extension of our self. Thus taking my property is aggressing against me. The passage is in accordance with (4) and (5) as well from the fact that Jesus committed violence against the thieves *because* they were stealing.Sub-Contention. Commandment Against Theft.“You shall not steal."[3]If we are to take the social anarchist conception of property wherein everyone owns everything (or legitimate personal or private ownership is actually non-existent) then this verse doesn't make any coherent sense. Obviously if one of the respective contentions of property in Christian thought is to be maintained though, then it will be necessary to fit that into established Christian doctrine. I will assume for the sake of debate that the Commandment against stealing is an established Christian doctrine. Therefore it will be necessary to fit a given conception of property within that doctrine. If we substitute in private property rights then the verse actually makes a coherent prescription. We are to respect property rights just as we are to respect out fellow human being since property rights are an extension of one's self (from (3)).===Conclusion===Due to the comparative nature of this debate, the burden on both myself and Con will be to show why our own conception of anarchism is compatible with Christianity over the other's. Therefore it's not just enough for my opponent to point out flaws in my arguments for that would say nothing of Christianity's support for social anarchism. On my arguments themselves, I have shown two examples from the Bible showing that both a basic Christian doctrine (the Commandment not to steal) and an example of Christ's own behavior only make sense from within a privatist propertarian framework. Thus Christianity interpreted properly supports an anarcho capitalist conception of property. Now I'll pass the debate back to my opponent.===Sources===[1] http://mises.org... Section: "Property in External Things"[2] Matthew 21: 12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com...) International Standard Version[3] Exodus 20:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com...) NIV