You still have to build it out of something.
An economy of pure traded labor, like trading foot massages or whatever, wouldn't actually have property.
An economy of pure traded labor, like trading foot massages or whatever, wouldn't actually have property.
Another person want to build a music instrument. He need some special kind of tree, with some specific size and age, so he want all of us to not cut that tree. Does he make a fence to protect the tree while it's growing? Does he hire a bodyguard for the tree?
Hunter-gathering is coercion-free unless someone other group want hunter-gathering in the same place. An once farmer arrive, it gets more complicated.
No coercion here. There is no force or threats of violence involved in these scenarios. Imposing a negative externality on someone is not necessarily coercion.
> Another person want to build a music instrument. He need some special kind of tree, with some specific size and age, so he want all of us to not cut that tree. Does he make a fence to protect the tree while it's growing? Does he hire a bodyguard for the tree?
That would likely be coercion. Unless he planted the tree, or acquired it by consensual means from its previous owner, he doesn't have any more right to the tree than anyone else. Although, I don't think it would be as bad as if he had taken the tree from someone who had already cut it down because in that case he would have deprived them of the product of the labour that went into cutting the tree down as well.
Merely using resources isn't coercion but it doesn't "result in property" unless you also apply coercion to exclude others from them.
(Seems like a pointless word game you're trying to play here.)
That's a difference between physical objects and trading pure labor itself (like the trading foot massages example).