Well I would strongly disagree with that. If she acquired this legitimately then she has the right to decide whether to give or not, no matter how bad you or Adam may think her decision is. If Adam steals he’s the one who is acting coercively and is thus in the wrong and liable for this act of coercion. The right thing of Adam to do is to try and convince Eve to trade.

Maybe she’s got all the food, but he’s got the TV (a nice source of entertainment after a good lunch), and he might have other interesting stuff to give in exchange for food, or even for at least a single whole tree. I would certainly find Adam contemptible if the first thing he tried in this situation was coercion before even trying to trade.

If Eve persists in refusal I would understand if Adam resorted to coercion to keep himself from dieing of hunger, but I would nevertheless hold him liable and I think Eve would have the right to seek reparations, perhaps in form of him giving her something he has that is of value to her, without her giving any more apples in exchange.

I suppose when you say the society could never work like that you mean nobody could ever own all of the food in existence or all of anything in existence. With that I would certainly agree which makes the above analogy somewhat less relevant.

But yes I think I do link self-ownership with thing-ownership if the things that come to your possession and you claim as your own are a result of your labor (which doesn’t mean only that you actually made it of raw materials, but also that you invested effort into finding it or trading for it). What’s the purpose of your existence if not to think and then act upon your thoughts? What’s acting if not labor and what’s the purpose of labor/acting if not to acquire something that is truly yours? The link is evident there; denying property is therefore a denial of self-ownership too. If I own myself, clearly I own all the consequences of my self’s labor, consequences of my existence.

It appears to me that what you are doing here is equating the ownership of objects to the ownership of the person, and then prove the “holiness” (forgive me) of thing-ownership by proving self-ownership.
I disagree on the connexion.

First off, self-ownership: yes. Definitely.

Hypothetical situation:
Adam and Eve are in some sore of garden-thing. Or a dungeon. Adam is in some kind of trance while watching football on the telly, Eve discovers the apple trees. The only food in sight. Eve, smart little bugger, throws all the apples in a hypothetical basket and, for good measure, writes mathetical formulae onto the tree trunks. Lacking any previous arrangements, she would now appear to own the food. All of it. Including the milk, not that that would last for long. Seeing as she doesn’t trust people with dangly bits, she doesn’t give Adam anything, at all. Why should she, it’s *her* food, after all.
Now that’s what *I* call coercion. If you over-interpret the analogies of above, Adam raping Eve would be comparable to him eating an apple

Okay, human society doesn’t work like that. It could never, it would never. The concept of property is inevitable in a real human society where there is any form of scarcity. And, a relaxed form of property, is fine by me.
Still, I think that property isn’t as simply natural as that.

PS: No, there’s no way I’m going to use that as a basis of a proof of the necessity of a government. Ignore that discussion point in your response, if there is on, please.