> Or you can share 5% of your hunt to keep the lazy dog from attacking you while you sleep. Is it 'fair'? No. Is it a wise move? Maybe.

Then you'll get used to share your 5% , after some time he'll want to have 6.75% and you'll think- well , compared to 5% additional 1.75% is nothing for my safety! After some time other dogs will start to look with keen eyes on lazy dog lifestyle.

Lazy dog is well-rested, can probably take more than 50% from a tired dog that hunted, if not even outright killing the hunter.

I agree, we can probably reduce tensions in society by some redistribution. But there's an important point to which too many people are blind: you cannot do it without limits. As more and more of the bone is taken away for "sharing", tensions start to grow again just from other side. And economic motivation is more, and more distorted leaving less bones for all.

Or I can eliminate that dog so I don't have to share my 5% of the kill every single time.

Or the other dogs can pack together to eliminate you.

Considering the number of times this has happened in human history, any ideas of kingly invincibility you may have are unlikely to be realistic.

That's completely fine. The problem with this entire thread is the thought that there is some kind of inherent value to human life. There isn't.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It's the nature of any gamble, and life certainly is one.