Nothing is owned forever...

We own something that is made by our hand, but why? It is owned, not simply because we produced it, but for the further reason that to own what we produce is efficient and better for the community. It also gives us an incentive to produce.

If we are not entitled to own that which we produce then we have little incentive to make anything. It is better for Society if we retain that which we produce. We do not own it because we made it, instead because it is advantageous to own that which we produce. We can own something if the constructs of the Society find it helpful that persons are permitted to own such in those circumstances. Ownership is derived from utility, not action or authority.

It is advantageous to own that which we produce because if we do not derive the benefit of our actions, Society does not prosper. If the outcomes are removed from the labour poor results will follow. It is better to do nothing in circumstances such as these (where everything is shared) so to conserve energy. If we don't keep what we make, it is better to do nothing and be (apparently) idle.

Communism fails because it is better to do nothing than to have your labour wasted.

We own that which it is expeditious for us to own and since for a productive Society, we must own the fruits of our labour, then we own what we make. Unless we allow people to keep what they make, there are bad outcomes. If someone else made it, it is not owned by us and we must respect the distinction; others must stay away. A prosperous Society respects work...

It is efficient for people to stay away from something that you have made, or caught in the case of hunting, yourself. It is also efficient to stay away from land if it has been allocated from others, and you are accorded a suitable patch of land yourself, or compensated for being deprived of the land.

Land, and other items, can, may be owned if we (Society) instruct others to stay away from the property and have justification for doing so... it is not a question of "proof" only the opinion of the dominant group. Whilst a justification is not strictly necessary since property rights are determined by force, the justification for land ownership is that the Society thrives if we each own our plot, and similarly if we each own our labour. We do better if property rights are respected...

We need ownership to retain the incentive to work and to be able to exclude others from land so that crops may be grown and harvested, without ownership Society fails. Without land ownership we have Communism and everyone dies because there is no incentive to work; it is better to conserve energy and do nothing.

Property is defined by expedience and if we do not allow others to own land we can have no privacy and no (private) farms. Collective land ownership leads to failure. We can solve this by reference to rent, not ownership. If someone wants to use the land they must rent if from the others... if they rent less land than is typical from the relevant others, they may be due a dividend.

We do not own anything outright, for all time, it is leased from the others in the Community. Since ownership affects others, it is right that they are compensated in some way, perhaps with rental income. We rent land from others...

Property is leased from the surrounding (peaceful) population. In a sense, we are incarcerated by others that own land...

Title edit: From "Nothing is owner forever..." To "Nothing is owned forever..."