I don't understand why you ignore it.

Because there is a growing body of work suggesting that small(er)-scale production is, or can be, more productive (when accounting for hidden costs & externalities) than the fictional "economies of scale" attributed to large-scale state-capitalism.

I'm not talking about "grabbing" land, in the first place.

Then what? Land, by default, is now owned by anyone.

I honestly don't understand the factory fetish.

Factories are a much more important part of our industrialized society than land. I don't understand why you ignore it. The way factories and businesses are run (democratically in socialism VS despotically in Capitalism) affects the society around them.

to allow one person to simply own as much land as they could grab while others have none gives them an inequal position from which to build more inequality.

I'm not talking about "grabbing" land, in the first place.

But this grey area does not apply to other, more importants aspects of private property for example, as in the ownership of factories…owned by the capitalist but used by the workers.

I honestly don't understand the factory fetish.

But this grey area does not apply to other, more importants aspects of private property for example, as in the ownership of factories. Something that is owned by the capitalist but used by the workers.

Again, I do not claim that this is the threatening part, rather it's the part where you've stopped using the land but feel justified in threatening others who would make use of it because you laid claim to it first. To prevent the use of unused land (private property) requires the threat of force

This is tiring. I *never* made the claim that this sort of behavior would be justified. Let me repeat myself, because perhaps I was not clear the first time:

If you want to extrapolate arguments I didn't make in order to confirm your biases, do it elsewhere.

By this definition of "threat", maintaining or fighting to preserve one's life (IOTW, "f you plan on attacking me, know that I will fight back"), against an aggressor, is also a "threat."

This is nothing similar to private property. It's more akin to someone trying to take your possesion.

Claiming previously unowned property is not a threat, for the simple fact that, with regards to the heretofore unowned land (which any one could've acquired and made use of, but nobody did), there is nobody who could conceivably feel "threatened" by the assertion of ownership.

Again, I do not claim that this is the threatening part, rather it's the part where you've stopped using the land but feel justified in threatening others who would make use of it because you laid claim to it first. To prevent the use of unused land (private property) requires the threat of force.

You're avoiding the subject.

You're the one who invoked the "unargued" argument.

You said that claiming private property does not involve threats of force.

Yes, because the argument was so patently retarded that it didn't warrant a response. By this definition of "threat", maintaining or fighting to preserve one's life (IOTW, "f you plan on attacking me, know that I will fight back"), against an aggressor, is also a "threat."

Unfortunately, this is not a threat, nor could any reasonable person construe it as such.

Claiming previously unowned property is not a threat, for the simple fact that, with regards to the heretofore unowned land (which any one could've acquired and made use of, but nobody did), there is nobody who could conceivably feel "threatened" by the assertion of ownership.

However you take it one unargued step further…

I didn' t "take it one unargued stpe further." You did. Get over it. If you want to talk about what I actually wrote, you're more than welcome to do so. If you want to extrapolate arguments I didn't make in order to confirm your biases, do it elsewhere.