The problem is most people probably don't agree with your definition of force and theft. I also don't know how you define the natural and why it should matter whether something is natural or not.
Forget the natural part, the important part is coercion. You can't have socialism without coercion and initiation of force, you can have a free market though.
As I already said, most people probably don't share your definition of initiating force and coercion. You provide no reason why those terms should be based only on private property. If you define initiation of force as "initiation of force, except when i'm protecting property", then you can obviously come to the conclusion that you don't initiate force, but you are still initiating force by other peoples definition, unless you can justify to them the assumption in your definition.
You only have a free market without coercion as long as all participants act in good faith. Otherwise you either have to let bad actors get away with whatever they like, in which case you no longer have a market, or else someone has to coerce them into fulfilling their obligations.
> You only have a free market without coercion as long as all participants act in good faith.
No, you have a free market without coercion as long as there is no coercion. If some are acting in bad faith or badly, that's more power to the competition.
Of course full capitalism needs to be enforced. People using the resources they need happens naturally. Protecting private property requires initiation of force. Just Google issues of Libertarianism.
If your body is your private property, then anyone trying to trespass without your consent is initiating force and enforcing is not initiation of force. I consider the fruit of my labor to be, like my body, my private property and anyone trespassing it without my consent is initiating force.
Most people protect their body, because they have instinct for self-preservation, regardless of their beliefs about property. You presented no argument why we should treat natural resources or fruit of labor the same as human body. You just assume Libertarian definitions. It's a bit like fundamentalist religious person saying "I consider love to be a product of a god, so you feeling love confirms gods existence." There is no interesting argument in that statement.
Actually most mammals instinctively defend with force the fruit of their labor or their private property. Just try to steal a monkey's food of try to walk on the land of a lion he peed on to mark it as his and see what happens to you. It's natural to most mammals (and even reptiles) to protect their private property and fruit of labor as if it was their own body because their survival depends on these things not being trespassed.
We're animals too, mammals to be precise, sounds like an honest cherry-picked as it's literally the family of animals we belong to. Hard to fight one of our most basic animal nature: the defense of our body and personal territory and property.
