The action theory of property helps to illustrate those aspects of each that are merits and those that are flaws, notably where coercive action is taken or advised to an extent greater than the existing coercion to resolve conflicts or enforce property regimes.
When an actor observes net coercion in a conflict, he may make the judgment to intervene to defend the integrity of the coerced party, but this itself a coercive act.
Judgments of acceptable levels of unrequited net coercion are necessarily based on subjective values, and thus enforcement costs of a property regime should lie with those who voluntarily agree with the judgment to intervene.
As a corollary to the result that an actor that values justice should not coerce support for its results, multiple determinations of justice in any property conflict should not impose a net coercion on each other.
As far as the affected party see the effects as a burden and acts accordingly rather than a boon there is bound to be some observer who subjectively recognizes this as net coercion and seeks justice for the coerced party.
(56) But what is rarely questioned is if the resultant system is coercive toward any party, or if that coercion is justifiable.
The situation may be a sad reality that the actors within a system must be weary of creating when using such property, and outside observers are welcome to lend support in enacting some governance system to control the misuse of resources but there should be no coercion on actors external to this system in the form of forced support.
The action of local state authorities and the court system to deny a property regime enforced by the islanders itself is coercion, and only justified to the extent that it acts to reduce net coercion in a way that burdens only those involved in the conflict and those actors seeking to enforce their regime with costs of enforcement.
As long as the assumptions about the values of actors are accurate, the action theory of property will distinguish the exact object that is claimed as property, and will offer a solution for those seeking to reduce coercion.
(27) This is evident in the wide support of the right to self defense to repel coercion.
(46) See, e.g., Stephan Kinsella, "The Problem With 'Coercion'" (2009), www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/07/the-problem-with-coercion/.