Technically, it doesn't, and certainly not at the expense of the presence of a coercive government. It is, however, in the best interest of owners of property to want to enforce their own property rights, or see to it that an efficient (yet non-coercive government) mechanism exists for acknowledgement and protection of property rights.
Enforcement of property rights is a form of coercion, at least from the point of view of those who disagree with them, for example the American Indians versus the European settlers. But to go on the other foot for a moment, can you give examples of modern capitalism without an elaborate system of property rights and the administration thereof? Not talking here about flea markets or desert islands. I worked for several years for a commodities exchange so you can assume I understand that context.
Technically, it doesn't, and certainly not at the expense of the presence of a coercive government. It is, however, in the best interest of owners of property to want to enforce their own property rights, or see to it that an efficient (yet non-coercive government) mechanism exists for acknowledgement and protection of property rights.
Enforcement of property rights is a form of coercion, at least from the point of view of those who disagree with them, for example the American Indians versus the European settlers. But to go on the other foot for a moment, can you give examples of modern capitalism without an elaborate system of property rights and the administration thereof? Not talking here about flea markets or desert islands. I worked for several years for a commodities exchange so you can assume I understand that context.
You are 100% correct! And no, I can't.