Property Rights to Suit Republicans, Anarchists, Libertarians, Socialists, Voluntarists?

The liberty movement is perhaps the most controversial and intellectually stimulating in the arena of ideas for organizing society. One common theme runs through most of them. The Non-Aggression Principle also known as NAP. The idea that no individual can justly claim to aggress against another individual. The only just claim to use violence is in self-defense. Already being such a small fraction of the population, those whom wholeheartedly apply the NAP, it would be a shame for so many sub factions to emerge if it stalled the effort to bring this one principle into the acceptance of general society. One of the most contentious among the topics of discussion which can lasts for hours in the chat rooms, or for years in the forums of the liberty interwebs, is the idea of property rights. There is a general consensus among the liberty not-leaders, Adam Kokesh, Stefan Molyneux, Kevin Carson, Larken Rose, Jeffrey Tucker, Lew Rockwell, Hans Herman Hoppe, and Ron Paul is that self-ownership is inviolable. These folks typically prefer to go without labels, but if pressed would self-describe their positions as Anarchist, Voluntarist, Free-Market Socialist, Libertarian, Republican, Anarcho-Capitalist. However, where does self-ownership end and where do property rights begin? This is the problem I hope to solve. I do not claim this argument to be conclusive, but I do offer it humbly before you.