Comment: not just legal

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: but ownership is a legal (see in situ)

not just legal

1) Ownership is not just a legal concept. If you borrow a pen from your friend, why do you return it? Are you afraid he is going to bring down the force of the state on you? Even tribal societies without any third party enforcers recognize ownership. Ownership is a social construct first, before being a legal construct.

2) You say "a person does not 'possess' their body, they are one and the same with their body." Ok, fine, that's debatable, but I don't see how identifying the self with the body implies that you don't possess it. Why can't entities possess themselves?

3) If ownership depends only on the legal enforcement of a third party, as you claim, how does the third party decide who owns what? Clearly, there must be some rules, even if this third party is all-powerful. Even if this third party decides it owns everything, like a communistic state, that's a rule. So the rule has to come first, before the law. So what should the rules be?

4) You have no obligation to something you did not agree. If you did not agree to have your ownership enforced by this third party, you have no obligation to them even if they bring you your stolen stuff back.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson