> All property requires a coercive third party. You couldn't actually defend your yard, for example, you almost certainly would lose possession to someone bigge

> All property requires a coercive third party. You couldn't actually defend your yard, for example, you almost certainly would lose possession to someone bigger and stronger with more weapons. That's true of almost everyone. You're taking things too literally. Defending my property doesn't necessarily require me to do it. I can pay others to do it. This does not require a coercive third party. > Re: scarcity, nothing about property requires it to be scarce. Of course it does. Property itself is a construct invented by us in an attempt to resolve conflict. If something isn't scarce, then there can be no conflict, since my use of something does not conflict with your use of the same thing. > Are you suggesting, for example, that if land weren't scarce, it shouldn't be the subject of property rights? It's beyond my capacity of thought to even imagine what "land isn't scarce" would even look like. I guess it would require some sort of reality where N people could occupy the same space without impeding on the use of said space by the other N-1 people. In that case, certainly, it wouldn't be property. > There are finite movies in existence Finiteness has nothing to do with this. There are also a finite number of copies of movies, and yet, I claim such things are not scarce.