If there is a fire in a building we cannot all descend the fireman's later at once.
We cannot all eat the same apple.
If you ban private property who banned it? Bakunin's ideas are meaningless since it would require the same amount of exclusion of personal rights to enforce his ideas. We cannot all enjoy some liberties at the same time in the same place. Bakunin and yourself seem to be asserting that since we cannot all enjoy those liberties at the same time that we shouldn't have those liberties at all. We cannot all own the same property at the same time so then no one can own property since it excludes the right s of others?
If that is what you are asserting (and correct me if you are not, but so far it seems to be) then where does this philosophy end? Will it be deemed unfair for me to possess anything, since I must store my things somewhere and that space would disallow someone else from using that space? So far Im not finding much logic in Bakunin's ideas even though the assertion was written well and sounded great on the surface. But its the details that go array and make the entire assertion childish and idiotic. For the simply fact that we cannot all eat the same apple. But even Bakunin's ideas require laws to enforce them which would be going against Bakunin's ideas, hence the reason why I assert that they are childish and idiotic.