Juan: I am not sure whether you want a real conversation, but given your persistence, I'm willing to take the chance.
Was what your score on the Austrian quiz? Mine was 95%. Not that it's that important; it just means I have some idea of what Austrian views are.
The Austrian test "answer" on property is quite brief; my views are more nuanced:
Property is a naturally arising relationship between human beings and material things. Property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Indeed, civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.
Property doesn't exist by in nature, but is a relationship created by man - and meaningful only to the extend that it is mutually erspected by others (i.e., "enforceable"). It is certainly not the only relationship by man and material things - there are no property rights in some things and shared property rights in others, and men also often take things that others say belongs to them (viz., a denial of or indifference to "property" of others).
"Property" as we know it is a human institution, but it is hardly unique to man. Other animals also try to capture and defend resources - treat them like personal property - often very effectively, but it does require diligence and expenditure of energy. But cooperation (and some reciprocal recognition of "pecking orders", rules of priority and use developed in animals because it provided some advantages over a constant, no-holds-barred squabble over resources.
Does property require law? If you mean written law, then of course not. Humans had recogizable property rights land before we had written language. But property of course requires relatively clearly understood and accepted rules, and social mechanisms to enforce those rules - both to allow those whose rights are violated to seek redress and to provide disincentives to violations. Written law of course is certainly created by elites, and used to enforce property rights. These laws are in some ways simply codifications of common, unwritten rules, but they also involve some element of deliberate choice and decisions that elites were in a position to manipulate in their favor. Is written law still useful? Yes. Is written law complete and satisfactory as is? Read Mises.
You might recalled that I previously discussed Mises and Yandle, in the context of explaining exactly these points earlier.
Do "property and enforceable property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity"? Yes, indeed.
Is "civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property"? This is certainly a rather broad and vague statement. Have we had a spectrum of societies, some of which, for one length of time or another, did not officially recognize private property, or considered most property to be "collectively" owned or owned by the state? Sure, but to the extent that internally they did not acknowledge private property they had severe problems with economic calculation, a productive division of labor, and increasing levels of prosperity. Some of these groups are still around, starting with various religious sects. But even the societies that declaimed private property still acted as if the state owned property, and would defens such property against outsiders, and in any event, as human nature has evolved to include a concept of property, even in the radically communistic societies a fairly large streak of private property was respected as a practical matter, and helped these societies to function.
Does "any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity"? Well, encroachment by whom? Without a state, the effectiveness of "property" is entirely dependent on the ability of the one claiming it to defend his position, which ability depends to a large extent on the willingness of others to accept his claim. As the material environment continually changes, so too will "property" change in societies - with or without laws. If the encroachment is by the state, then I pretty much agree - and am worried about theft and manipulation by elites. All taxation may reduce freedom, and is likely to reduce prosperity, but besides that, are state actions with respect to resources that are not owned "encroachments on property"?
Is TokyoTom a radical, man-hating enviro fascist commie? Who knows; but he's certainly a snake in the grass who can't be trusted, that's for sure.
Hope the above is useful as a place for further discussion. Forgive the arrogant sarcasm at the end.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard Feynman