When I was kid,.my mother explained socialism as.follows: what is yours is mine,.but what is mine IS MINE and has nothing to do with you.
Oddly this is an okay description of Max Stirner's philosophy on property.
1. Basically I as an individual have no reason to recognize your property as your property if it conflicts with my interests. If taking "your" property benefits me more than not taking it then I shall take it.
2. What is yours is mine.
3. I will grant you some of what is mine if it is in my interests to do so (say fighting over said thing would be extremely costly.)
All concepts of "mine" and "yours" are dependent on how people view the justification for "mine" and "yours", the only real thing about the property is violence. In Stirner's words, "Might makes right." One only has a right to something by using at least the threat of their might to secure it. Although, since everybody is a self-interested egoist, there would still be boundaries of the extended self by everyone asserting what is theirs, especially in the absence of rulers whom can consolidate political (violent) power. Thus, it is not necessarily true that the outcome is a Hobbessian "war of all against all" because there are costs to conflict, and mutual interests in peace.
From there, certain libertarian-socialists/individualist anarchists influenced by Max Stirner, like Benjamin Tucker, derived possession rights based on a system of mutual contracts with one's neighboring individuals and communities. A flexible, yet stable order hence comes about via liberty.