[DarylZero]

> There is nothing inherent about wealth that grants the owner power over many other people. The owner, if very skilled in combat, might be able to physically defend their wealth

In order to even have a concept of "owning wealth" there must be a physical defense of wealth already set up.

It's "inherent" in that sense. Owning the thing means having some means of physical militaristic defense of the thing.

The underlying fact you're referencing here is simply that the means of defense is never an individual's physical power.

What it is instead, is their position in a social graph of interests. Other people in the society have their own lives structured so that it's in their interests to serve and protect power.

[kqr]

I don't want to disagree with your nuanced and well-reasoned reply in general.

However, ownership exists in egalitarian forms of organisation too. It's not the "exclusive right to prevent others from using the thing", but in any human arrangement people understand that some objects are needed by some people (crutch, broken leg), some objects are more actively used by some people (household hatchet, cutting wood every week), and some objects have sentimental value for some people (grandma's ashes.)

These things normally count as property, with no violence to enforce it.