[pandaman]

>Ownership doesn’t exist in nature

What do you call the territorial animals then? A tiger will chase other tigers from the area it considers its own. Same as wolves and many other species. It's not exactly property in the sense that it cannot be traded but it is indeed the ownership. Without property rights humans would have had the same: the strong chase the weak off their land or force them to pay for being on the land.

[FooBarBizBazz]

> Without property rights humans would have had the same: the strong chase the weak off their land or force them to pay for being on the land.

That's precisely what property rights are: "the strong [...] forc[ing the weak ...] to pay for being on the land". That's what property taxes are. To "have rights" is to be paid up with a protection racket. Yet as depressing as that is, it beats the alternative! In many places it's not a bad deal!

[pandaman]

They are precisely not that. A frail old lady can have property rights and use them to force strong young men off her property.

[FooBarBizBazz]

This works, ultimately, because the frail old lady can call the police, who outnumber and outgun the strong young men.

There is admittedly also an element of magic here: People generally view property rights as legitimate, and the police who enforce them as legitimate, and so on. But when that belief system fails, it's ultimately the State's ability to deploy force that reestablishes the faith.

[pandaman]

> because the frail old lady can call the police, who outnumber and outgun the strong young men.

Indeed, the law is ultimately based on force but it still does allow physically weak to have rights, unlike a natural law.