With one party having resources and the other staving unless they agree. Yeah, that's not coercive or anything. That's like saying the victim agrees to give the mugger his money because he prefers it to getting shot.
Back in the real world, and to use your analogy, it's like the mugger saying "give me your money" and you being able to say, "Nahh, that deal doesn't really work for me. I'm gonna go down the street and see if I can find a mugger who isn't going to take my money".
Anecdotes don't make arguments.
But ridiculous analogies about muggers do?
But I bet you wouldn't work for minimum wage like millions of Americans do.
Let's try to understand each other here.
You would propose that everyone who is working at a minimum wage job is resigned to such a situation because, despite great skill, intellect, and work ethic "the Capitalist man" is keeping him down (with a jackboot, or some such).
I would propose that everyone who is working at a minimum wage job is resigned to such a situation because despite the abundance of opportunity provided in a Capitalist economy to improve one's self, build marketable skills and knowledge, and generally get ahead most minimum wage workers are too lazy to bother, or suffer from self-defeating habits and addictions that keep them down.
Since neither of us is entirely right, and neither of us is entirely wrong, we'd still wind up with a great many people who, despite being given 40 acres and a mule would still languish and rot unless someone else took responsibility for them.
And lets look at this from another perspective and play a little mental game.
The United States is composed of a little over 3.7 million square miles of territory.
That comes to a little over 2.4 billion acres.
There is a current U.S. population of a little less than 314 million.
If we assume that that total acreage could be divide by that total population such that every man, woman, and child would receive an equal portion, and that every portion would contain EVERYTHING that a human being needs to remain self sufficient then each of them would receive about 7.5 acres.
Those are facts. There's a bit of rounding involved but if we make the assumptions that I've proposed then the math works out okay.
Now lets play the game.
What percentage of the total land mass of the United States do you think actually can provide a human being with everything they need to live?
I'd hazard to guess that it doesn't even begin to approach the total.
When we begin to take into consideration river-less parries, deserts, the Rocky Mountains, swampland, dense, dense, dense Northeastern and Northwestern forests, coastline, and etc...
Maybe half?
Next exercise.
I'm fortunate in that I live in a well forested area in Northwestern NJ. There is actually a real Trout stream (I fish it regularly) down the hill from me and if I were to clear away all the houses there's enough open land that I could farm.
Assuming my neighbors (under the new land distribution scheme) and I could all get along my little municipality at about 7 square miles could sustain about 640 of the current residents of the town.
Wadda we do with the ~7000 current residents?
Do they move? If so, where?
Do I move? If so **** that. I like it here. I'm not moving. You move me, and ΜΟΛON ΛABE, and "from my cold dead hands" and all that claptrap.
So I guess the real question is, how do you propose we equitably and peacefully divide and relocate people?
And what happens if your 7.5 acres happens to be in the middle of the Mojave, or atop Denali, or along a tidal basin?
You're cool with that?
Or do we each get 2.5 acres to accommodate the fact that there is only so much arable, hunt-able land around that also has sufficient water?
But you'd have bargaining power because you have capital. Most workers don't.
Would I?
Would I have bargaining power equal to that of every other resident?
Let's say that my plot of land had lots of fish, which people could eat, but your plot of land had lots of something much rarer like minerals. Salt, or iron, or gold, or whatever.
Wouldn't the simple natural distribution of minerals lead to a society of some "haves" and some "have nots"?
I mean, we already split up all the land so it would be equally distributed and ran people out of their homes and off their previous land so that we could distribute to those who didn't have any. Are you now saying that I don't even own what's mine?
Okay, we'll play that game too.
My new plot of land happens to sit on top of a salt deposit or an iron vein.
I can mine some of either, enough to make me the richest man in town, but I can't mine all of it or anywhere enough to provide for the wants of everyone.
Who comes and mines my land?
And do they have to provide me with some sort of compensation for the inconvenience of hosting their mining operation and for the loss of the use of whatever land they take for that operation?
Who does the compensating in this instance?
Sure it does. Those with more resources might not work at all. Those with fewer resources might work, but wouldn't have to accept minimum wage. And those with the least resources would accept lower wages. This reflects the fact that that at its core capitalism is about exploiting those with fewer resources.
I thought we were trying to get AWAY from Capitalism?
I though we were trying to figure out some way where everyone is equal, though we've seen that even if we try to be equal and "fair" in our redistribution of real property there's still no Earthly way we can really be fair.
So everyone gets an arithmetically equal portion of land but some will have resources that are more valuable and if they're industrious enough they'll exploit that disparity. Others, due to laziness, or ineptitude, or a simple mistake, or an injury, or a natural disaster, will be given an arithmetically equal portion of land but it'll go fallow and unused. What's more, since everyone is working for him or herself who is going to take care of the indigent?
Sure it does. Those with more resources might not work at all. Those with fewer resources might work, but wouldn't have to accept minimum wage. And those with the least recourses would accept lower wages. This reflects the fact that that at its core capitalism is about exploiting those with fewer resources.