I suppose the point here is that, if you're not a member of this hypothetical tribe, then you still do need to "get a job"? This relates to property rights in a way: The members of this tribe have collective ownership, passed down through inheritance, and you don't. It's certainly true that inheriting wealth beats having to work for it.

If we imagine that life is good for hunter-gatherers -- or at least that they have individual autonomy -- then we get a way to frame the issue: The Machine easily steamrolls these people, taking their land from them, but, people born inside The Machine are enslaved to The Machine.

Maybe you were responding to my word "permissionless": You cannot actually hunt on tribal lands without permission. Makes sense. What I had in mind in the "permissionless" sentence was something more like operating an informal business in a developing country -- which appears to be common. Perhaps there are networks of patronage there too, that you don't see? Protection, security, "turf"?

Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this is, except for mood: OP was arguing from a sort of utopian perspective, and you insist on a more competitive, resource-limited worldview.

I think my point, that there are societies not built around large organizations and formal employment, still does stand, however. Perhaps everything is bad, but it's presumably bad in different ways.