A hierarchy does not mean coercion

Is to defend property rights unethical because not both of the participants are consenting? In normal circumstances, an ethical behaviour, or at least one that does not violate ethics, is one in that (which) both (or all) participants are consenting. For example, if we both sit down to a meal, that is acceptable because neither one of us is there under duress. The same with a market transaction...

In the case of property rights, when we eject another person from a room, or field, the person being taken out is suffering from force; but is that force justified? Can being in a particular place (when unwanted) be a crime?

If we define crimes in merely practical terms, then yes, since property rights are conducive to prosperity and civilised commerce, then that would justify the use of force to protect property rights. But it is hard to establish that the trespasser has committed a crime. Can our mere presence in an area be considered a crime? Has harm occurred? Is a refusal to leave to commit harm?

Is to intrude on a property (uninvited) a violation of property rights and therefore a crime? Is it a crime to attack someone who refuses to leave your property, or is it acting in self-defence? Are we to assume that people will knowingly do something that they know to be wrong, or will they stop once they are informed? We might all have a difference of opinion, and not be convinced when others explain that their land is owned by them, and this can go on for some time. Until whoever is deciding the rules to follow has been persuaded, then the property rights must remain as they are. When the Governing powers are convinced that things should change, then the law will alter and the criterion to decide who is the aggressor will change.

It is not the same to disagree with how existing property rights are arranged and to say that we should have no property rights.

To make someone give up their property is difficult and they will not do so unless the use of force is threatened, or they choose to make a charitable donation. People will not become enlightened and give away their own property in the hope that others will follow. If property remains (as a concept) we will retain that which we have.

Should everyone give up their property? No because that would lead to difficulties with growing crops and living in an orderly way. If we cannot own our own property we suffer from overcrowding wherever there are comfortable surroundings.

What if we must defend our own property and leave the police and the Government out of it? Isn't that, in a sense, what already happens? To be responsible for our own property does not mean that we cannot have a hierarchical structure of (voluntary) cooperation in place to protect it.