The Best Kind of Rulership

To rule over something means to control it according to your own will. It is moral to rule over something that is your own property, and immoral to do otherwise.

Equality by Rights

There are two paradigms we can follow:

1. All conscious beings are inherently equal by rights - The actions they take are just or unjust regardless of who those beings are.
2. Some conscious beings have greater natural rights than others - There are actions that are unjust when performed by others, but when performed by those beings, they are just.

Given that no objective reason has been found for paradigm 2 to be true, it is reasonable to assume that paradigm 1 is true and to adhere to it. Ownership is material and arises from natural law. The object we are considering ownership over will be referred to as the object. In order to explain the nature of ownership, we need to answer the following two questions:

1. What are the possible states of ownership of an object?
2. What are the ways to change the state of ownership of an object?

In the following, we will elaborate on possible answers considering only those that imply equality by rights.

Actions

There are several actions we can perform on an object, namely use, alter, and destroy. Generally speaking, ownership does not grant the right to unconditional use of the object, but the right to authorize moral use of the object. In other words, anyone who wants to use an object in any way is obliged to seek permission from all owners of the object. Specifically, a non-owner of the object is required to seek permission from all owners, while an owner is obliged to seek permission from all other co-owners. In the case of exclusive ownership, there are no other co-owners, so the owner manages the object solely at their discretion.

States of Ownership

The object can be owned by no one, someone, or everyone, depending on the number of owners it has. If the object has no owner, then it is owned by no one. If the number of owners is between 1 and n-1, where n is the number of all conscious beings, then we say the object is someone's. If none of the previous conditions apply, and the object has n owners, then it is owned by everyone. All objects created through natural processes without the influence of conscious beings can be either nobody's or everybody's. From this, two cases arise:

1. Objects created through natural processes are considered everybody's property. When an object belongs to a group of people, it is necessary to obtain permission from all co-owners to modify that object. In this case, the group comprises everyone, so for even the smallest natural resource we wish to morally alter, the consent of all others would be required. Furthermore, if someone were to make something from this resource without their permission, it would be justified to physically prevent them from doing so. However, this definition of just behavior would lead to pure chaos, as no one could morally create anything, yet everyone could morally prevent others from creating. Therefore, we reject this possibility as untrue.
2. Objects created through natural processes are considered nobody's property. Unlike the previous case, when an object is unowned, everyone has the right to perform any action on the object without permission. It is entirely moral for someone to start working on something that is unowned, and it is immoral to physically prevent them from doing so. Therefore, we will accept this option.

Change of Ownership

The first possibility is that there is no change, and ownership remains the same as it was at the beginning. This would mean that as conscious beings, we do not own anything. Such a setup would make all material wrongdoings, such as theft or destruction of property, and even bodily wrongdoings, moral, if there is no change in which the material body becomes the property of the one who originates or begins to inhabit it. Therefore, we reject the proposition that there is no change in ownership status. Now we will proceed with the process whose result should be a diagram of ownership states describing how it is possible to change ownership of an object. For easier tracking of the text, we will simultaneously draw the diagram and explain the transitions.

We start from the state nobody's and wonder how it is possible for the object to become somebody's[k] where k is the number of conscious beings to whom the object belongs. The first possibility that arises is claiming the object as one's own. This can be done by taking the object, putting labels on it, physically fencing it off, or any other form of physical barrier to the object. This setup would justify not only hoarding objects but also occupying natural resources, such as simply taking over territory, land, water sources, or energy. Since nothing objective has happened to the object, but rather everything happens around it and in the mind of the one claiming the object as their own, we reject this possibility for gaining ownership of the object. The next possibility is that an object can become somebody's if someone uses it. This would mean that something becomes somebody's as soon as they start using it, for example, water from a spring would become somebody's if a group of people starts using it and they would have the right to forcibly prevent others from using that water. Also, if we do not consider a single use to be sufficient, the question of frequency of use arises, potentially introducing arbitrary determination of minimum frequency, which is not an objective measure. Therefore, we know that this is not a truth embedded in objective natural law. However, here we can notice that the state of ownership nobody's and in use differ. While the object is in use, i.e., during the duration of the act of use, it is not possible for someone to become the owner of the object because it would mean having the right to forcibly prevent others from using it, including those who are already using it. The object transitions to the in use state at the beginning of the first act of use and returns to the nobody's state when the last act of use ends.

We can determine the ways to achieve ownership through a process of elimination, by rejecting all invalid options. If we consider all the options, there is only one possible action left to achieve ownership, and that is investing labor to transform the object or use the object in the composition. If someone takes an object that belongs to no one and invests labor to transform it or uses it as part to create something else, then what they have obtained is their ownership. Since this method requires labor and is the last option, we accept this method for achieving ownership of the object.

By this, we have concluded how it is possible to truly make an object that belongs to no one your own. Let's see this also in an example. Let's say Vlasta found a piece of wood in the forest. By putting a label "Vlasta's object" on it, he did not become the owner. By moving it to another location, he did not become the owner. Even by using it every day to nail nails, he did not become the owner of the wood. During all that time, someone else also had the right to use that wood, and as long as Vlasta did not start using it for nailing nails, someone else could have become the owner. Only when Vlasta carved a figurine from the wood (which no one else had used), did he become the owner, and no one else had the right to use that figurine in any way without Vlasta's permission. Let's now consider how it is possible to achieve the reverse transition, i.e., how an object that belongs to someone can become nobody's. The first way is if the last owner dies, or generally ceases to exist in the material world, and in no way has determined to whom the object will belong. The second way is if the last owner renounces ownership of the object. When multiple beings have ownership of an object, it can become nobody's only when all owners die or renounce the object.

There is one more transition we haven't covered, which is the transition of changing ownership. So, the question is how it is possible to give ownership of an object. The first possibility is a gift, and the second is trade. The owner of the object can gift their share of the object to someone else, thereby transferring ownership to them. They can also trade, i.e., reach a mutual agreement through which ownership of the object changes in exchange for receiving a service or gaining ownership of another object. You can read more about morality of agreement in

this text

, in section Agreement. Inheritance is a special case of a gift, i.e., a posthumous gift according to the will of the owner. In addition to these, we have automatic changes of ownership. One such change occurs when one of the co-owners renounces their share of the object or dies without leaving their share to anyone, so their share is divided among the other co-owners. Another type of automatic change of ownership occurs when a being developing in the womb of another becomes conscious. At that point, ownership of the body of the new conscious being passes from the carrier to the newly conscious being.

Theft

When someone rules over something that is not their property, we call it theft. All immoral acts are special cases of theft. Murder is theft of another's life. Rape is theft of another's body. Robbery is theft of another's material goods. If we were to describe the recipe for moral behavior in two words, it would be "Don't steal." The best kind of rulership is self-ruleship. Self-ruleship is an art of behaving in accordance with moral law. When beings do not rule themselves, they commit injustice, and the more injustice they commit, the less freedom there is. In this way, through the natural moral law, karma is realized for immoral acts. More about the nature of moral law read

here

.

Anarchy

Anarchy, from the words "an" (without) and "archon" (ruler), represents a state without rulers, and in other words, a state without slaves. A state in which no one rules over others is a state in which everyone rules themselves. Therefore, anarchy is actually an internal monarchy, and not chaos as it is commonly believed without any etymological basis.

Conclusion

Without understanding the nature of ownership, it is not possible to understand the nature of morality and correctly recognize the difference between right and wrong. The goal of this text is to present the philosophy of ownership in order to reconsider our own values and behaviors and thereby contribute to creating a better world for all conscious beings around us, including ourselves. I hope you found the text interesting, and if you have any praise or suggestions, or different theories about ownership that lead to a better world, you can share them with me via email.