You need to distinguish asocial action (Crusoe alone on his island) with social interaction. In the former case, conflict is not possible because there are no other people. Hence, there is no right and wrong. In the latter case, conflict is possible because you and I can have conflicting ends (we actually have an expression for this in English: cross-purposes). Jane can only be happy by making John unhappy.
Whenever this situation of conflict arises, there are two ways it can be resolved… physical conflict or verbal conflict resolution (law). In the former case, it’s a matter of who is stronger than who. The use of physical conflict in the resolution of disputes will only be favored when there is a significant disparity between the physical power of the parties - for example, if John is a very old, sick man and Jane is a healthy, strong young woman, she may simply bully John to get her way.
When there is not a significant disparity between the parties, then the prospect of physical conflict is fraught with uncertainty for both parties. A fight could be dangerous, even deadly. Hence, the parties will be wary of one another and they will be disposed to seek a less risky and costly solution. When the services of an arbitrator are sought in the resolution of such a dispute, we call this solution law.
The real point is that government is the Universal Bully. Yes, in law there is a threat of physical violence if the legal solution fails - the dispute could become violent again. But it is not a situation of one side threatening the other, like the bully who relies on physical violence. There is some kind of parity between the disputants in a lawsuit that goads both of them to find a reasonable solution to the dispute.
Government always operates through the use or threat of physical force (bullying) rather than law (persuasion based on social norms and a mutual interest in avoiding physical violence). Statutes, for example, are frequently called “laws” but they are not laws, they are policy pronouncements. “If we catch you doing X, we will do Z to you.”
Property law, on the other hand, is based on law rightly understood (not statutes). It is a social norm and an intrinsic part of human nature. Property-like behavior (possession, sense of ownership, homesteading (first-use rule), voluntary exchange, and so on) is a brute fact of human nature. The conception of “capitalist society” as merely an idea - such as heliocentrism - is a mistake. Property has always been part of human society and always will be part of it. Mises wrote a massive book on this very subject: Human Action.
Clayton -