Comment: You're mistaken. In the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're beyond (see in situ)

You're mistaken. In the

You're mistaken. In the anarchy or vacuum that followed the retreat of Roman control, order was established by the strongest establishing control of lands via hiring protection agencies (mercenaries).
Violence is how most property was originally established, as Mises even had no problem acknowledging.

After that initial establishment of property, every succeeding owner was not morally liable for that initial violence, any more than you and me are liable for the fact that the property we own was taken by violence in the past.

On their own property, the feudal lords and their protection agencies had full rights to act as they chose toward anyone tresspassing on their property. The right to expel, capture, enslave, or kill.

According to the theorty that all rights come from property, this is the logical conclusion.

I have x property. You come onto it. I can do whatever I want to on my own property, you are tresspassing.

Anarchy is that moment of disorder that precedes feudalism. Feudalism is a form of order out of chaos in the wake of anarchy. It is based on the unlimited right of disposal of one's own property, and anyone who happens to be on it.

It was Kings who broke down this order and tried to suppress this unlimited feudal right, often in the interests of the common people against the propertied nobility. The Church played a role in limiting these abuses. Limits were set by law and custom, as society evolved toward more central states, eventually toward constitutional monarchies and republics.

The emergence of the mobile capital of the bourgeois class, and eventually of firearms and printing helped end this order of things.

Power relations changed.

Your ethics are feudalistic ethics. Violence on your own property is just. Property is the only right, and the property owner has unlimited rights on his property. No one can stop you if your force is superior.

To punish people for acting in such a way on their own property, you would need to a) violate their property rights b) have a superior armed force, i.e., a government.