[kqr]

I'm not sure I understand the situation you describe. If you hire 40 goons to guard your furs, those goons could physically overpower you and take your furs for themselves.

...unless you have convinced them of your moral right to those furs. That's literally the only way a large group of people can be "unable" to expropriate them.

[joejerryronnie]

I don’t believe the goons would be operating on the principle of your moral right to the furs, rather they would be taking the more practical approach of believing you can provide them with a better quality of life than the next guy (and that they don’t have the skills to acquire furs on their own)

[kqr]

That means they have to believe one person can single-handedly outperform the rest of society in caring for them. Sure, polymaths exist, but not to that extent.

[DarylZero]

That's a pretty absurd thing to say.

Each individual bodyguard has no reason to think they would have a higher rank after a coup replacing the "one person."

They absolutely don't need to believe that the person at the top is irreplaceable. Sometimes they've lived through a replacement or two!

[kqr]

I think we are talking about completely different situations since you bring up "higher rank".

I'm talking about an egalitarian society where one person suddenly tries to convince a band of friends that it's in their interest to close themselves off from the rest of society and try to extract value from it without contributing back.

There's no "rank" to be gained from refusing to join that band -- quite the opposite! You get to go back to a society that's free from rank.

[DarylZero]

"If you hire 40 goons to guard your furs, those goons could physically overpower you and take your furs for themselves."

^ At best they get to split the furs up among 40 people instead of 41.

(And if the 1 removed is actually doing any work, there's also more work to assign.)

There's little reason for any individual goon to think they're going to get a better deal this way. Let alone enough to compensate for the risk.

Removing the guy who takes "the lion's share" produces someone new to take the lion's share.

Unless they think they can do away with that entire structure. But then they have to believe they can change everyone's behavior all at once from collectively enforcing inequality to collectively enforcing equality.

The kind of social structure that makes this possible is the kind of social structure that the powerful person will make sure can't arise (by controlling information, removing potential leaders, etc.)

[kqr]

The premise of the question was "in an egalitarian society, what prevents someone from appropriating much of a resource and converting their possession to power?"

You seem to be approaching the question "in a hierarchical society, what makes it impossible for small bands of people to overpower the entire system all at once?" which is an interesting question, but a very different one.