This almost seems to come down to individualism vs. collectivism?Before you decide this question, one or two other question needs to be answered first.
Does the state have the right to initiate violence, or not? Do property rights derive from the authority of the state, or do they derive from another source? (And if so, what is that source?)
Individualism promotes no violence (I think?) except in self-defence.
Collectivism promotes violence to anything and everything outside of the collective and/or its associations.
Individualism works together through collaboration when value is apparent for all parties involved.
Collectivism works together insofar as it has an opposition of some sort and while it may also only do the things it derives value from as a collective, in reality it would sway towards the most powerful lot within the collective.
So in those sort of terms, individualists would recognize property ownership through mutual agreement (In the same way value is derived). Collectivists would ... well ... I can't actually figure them out They kinda want to share it all but in reality don't/can't?
Collectives are however more powerful, obviously, and are built and established by power - and spiral (Self-reinforce) their own power. They can move greater things (Except in cases where individualists collaborate). But they override and coerce the individual.