Likewise, the only way I can think to facilitate the concept of private property (including land - I don't prescribe to the ideology that since you can't pick up the dirt to the core of the planet and the air some distance over your head, plus the coordinates and area of that portion of the planets surface and move it it can't belong to you) is to have some kind of collaborative agreement between all parties in good faith to not do business with anyone that actively violates any member parties property rights, and you need to depend on that collaborative organization to have enough economic influence to keep people from robbing them. But likewise, if they have sufficient economic influence to manipulate behavior, you are pretty much at a borderline government because they can act in self interest to harm others for their own benefit since others depend on their economic productivity.
So how do you not "own" anything and have a functioning interaction between peoples? How could someone walk up to me, take the computer I just placed on a table (through no altercation of force, which is more cut and dry - party A engaged in violence against B, and must be ostracized by the group - who owns what is more nebulous - but even who initiates violence can be a conflated argument) and walk away with it, and I lose that possession but have no recourse to claim its mine. I mean, I could go and pick up someone elses laptop, but I "lost" anything I put into the work on mine (without distributed backups or something, which also aren't "mine"), and the party I take the laptop from will lose any input they impart on theirs.
I don't see how you can have productivity without ownership, but you can't enforce ownership without either violence or a collective entity power enough economically to influence behavior to their whims, which is no better than most governments. They end up acting in their own self interest, which often means witch hunts.