Origin of ownership

Ownership is the foundation of a free and prosperous society. Its recognition is not just a vague "social construct" and a "social agreement that can be changed." Property is a logical law, the logical right of man. To deny ownership, we must reject logic.


If we reject logic, we reject the recognition of universal laws, science, and any general philosophy. If we reject logic, we also claim that there is nothing that can be described in general. If we reject logic, we claim that it is not possible to come to given conclusions by thinking.

Me and you

If we want to get to the roots of property, we have to get to the roots of human personality. At the beginning of everything is the ego. In the daily practice of action, the ego is our consciousness - our thinking and perception. Ego, it is we who act effectively - me, you, them. We are all in the negotiations only our consciousness.

I am my consciousness, which thinks and perceives the world around me. Only our consciousness is the "I" in the true sense of the word. Everything else is part of the outside world. The world we appropriate in different ways. Body - organs, skin and other physical manifestations - are together with man - values, thinking, perception, - otherwise also ego, components human beingsthat other people perceive as individuals.

Our ego is the only ego that controls our body independently. Our body is the external world to our ego, but it is also our first property from birth, ownership.

This is all the reason why people distinguish the "me and you". So why does "I" know that, for example, my neighbor is not "me", but "he".

To put it simply: I am me and you are you.

Prenatal and postpartum

Our ego is characterized by its value content, thus subjective values. However, they are not predestined - they develop fully after the birth of an individual.

That is why after birth we have a body here, a human animal. We don't have a man, he is starting to evolve. A newborn doesn't do that at all. We can observe at most "quasi-negotiation", reflexive actions of parts of the human body, the external world of man. The origin of property thus precedes the origin of our "I", perception, ego. Always - our first cell (our "first property") arises before our perception and our "I".

Creating our physical box is a matter of science. It's about chemistry, biology and so on. It is an objectively descriptive process, where values ​​have no place - they are not. There are given facts, given processes.

However, the creation of our "I", ie the ego, perception and so on, is a matter of value. Psychology examines various generalized "values" and their formation. However, it is mainly a subjective matter. The "birth" of a complex person is thus a matter completely subjective. It's just different for everyone. The mechanisms may be the same, but not their content.

Man thus accepts himself, his body, as his property. He does it voluntarily - if he were not, one would kill oneself to get rid of one's body. Which, by the way, a lot of people do.

Chaining of ownership

Now let's take it by gravity and logically: if my hand is part of the outside world just like the house I build (or have built) and then if I am (logically) the "owner of the hand" that is my property, that house is also my property in my possession. Just as I have the right to control that hand, so I have the right to "control" that house.

The fact that the hand can do (perhaps reflexively or because of illness) do something other than wish or something I did not intend or notice, does not change anything. Even the house decays when I don't take care of it, even in the house, unnoticeable (or only unnoticed) events take place in me. It doesn't change anything on my property.

The well-known argument that "land and others have been here for a long time, by what right we appropriate them" is not true. Our body was here before the "I", our ego, our perception and action, and yet we logically "got" it into custody, into possession. At the same time, it is part of the outside world, just like those lands!

If we think that someone can take a part of our property against us, we claim that that "someone" has the right to take a part of our body from us.

Violence of prior ownership

Recently, I encountered an interesting problem: if I am forced to accept existing property at birth, it is violence because I have no choice. I did not participate in the creation of that property, I do not agree with it.

But this problem is wrong in its own premise - ownership is a nonviolent thing (I own my body because I control it nonviolently). Of course, no one necessarily has to accept property that already exists. He can redeem that property, he can steal it. Certainly everyone I know can appropriate some property created earlier.

However, each of us is responsible for our property - in other words, if I steal something, I am responsible for this act of theft and the previous owner has the right to defend himself. He doesn't care at all that I never agreed to his property. I did not take part in that particular act of the shift. From his point of view, I am an attacker on his property. It's like attacking his body, his own - he also has the right to defend himself. For the same reasons, he has the right to defend his property.

In fact, this possibility is presented by the high demand for security that we can observe all around us.

Origin of ownership

The origin of property is in us, in our body. In that we are the only ones who sovereignly, voluntarily and non-violently decide on its actions, such as moving the hand. The only owners of our human body are we, that is, me, you, you.

Everything that follows this in the "chain" can thus be our property, our property, completely rightfully, unless an (voluntarily concluded) agreement (for example, an exchange) stipulates otherwise.

Ownership is so logical, completely natural. Like breathing, like life.


  1. God, I haven't read bigger nonsense in a long time… My hand is my property, for God's sake… My hand is me, isn't it? And how about distinguishing between ownership and use? Nevermind…

  2. hmmm so the master understands the law. By the way, to say that something is "LOGICAL RIGHT" so you would be very careful in your place, because it smells like a natural law school and that would not appeal to Dad Klaus as your guru and adherent of positive law theory, and he is always right ON.

Comments are off.