As for rational and self-determined, I’m not sure that I am more rational or self-determined than other life. This New York Times article discusses decision making and voting in deer, swans, and buffalo. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/science/contrary-to-orwell-democracy-rules-on-the-big-animal-farm.html

You seem to have missed my point about property so I will try again.

On your own, with just your own effort, you can make nothing. You need to have materials to make something. You do not create those materials. Thus, by your own argument, you do not own them.

So, from your standpoint, the question becomes: how do you get ownership of those items? You answer that question by declaring that the entire ecosystem that created that stick is valueless until you come along and pick up that (e.g.)stick, at which point the stick belongs to you because you made the effort to pick it up.

However, from my viewpoint, it is clear that the stick belongs either to itself, or to the ecosystem that created it. If I remove a stick from that ecosystem I have forced change upon it. That stick can no longer be used as a home and food for insects. The nutrients bound up in it will no longer seep into the soil to give life to the next generation of plants. Does this mean that I never pick up a stick to use for my purposes? No. But it does mean that I consider the consequences of using that stick. And it also means that I don’t consider that I own the stick. I am using the stick, but eventually it needs to be returned to its rightful owner.
–
JimFive

You obviously don’t know what the word “Communism” means, and checking your URL, you appear to also join the insufferable crowd of right-wingers today who also don’t know what the word “Socialism” means. Communism requires a large-scale society and a centralized government. I consider myself an anarcho-primitivist; our problems lie with the sheer scale of our society, and the existence of any hierarchy or power structure whatsoever. No, the “hive mentality” does not work for humans as it does for insects (of course, that doesn’t have anything to do with Communism, either), but not because of human exceptionality. It fails to work for humans for all the same reasons that it fails to work for all the other primates, or for wolf packs or elephant herds, for that matter.

Communism has never worked in reality, but only because no one has ever tried it. The USSR tried Leninism and Stalinism, both quite distinct from true Communism; China tried Maoism, again, a very distinct practice. Likewise, we can’t say much for capitalism, either; again, because no one has ever tried it. Smith made it quite clear in The Wealth of Nations that his argument worked only so long as the assumptions held that neither the workers nor the employers could conspire with one another, but we have had guilds, trade associations, cartels and unions to one degree or another from his day to this. Not that I would expect either scheme to work out, even if we did take a crack at them; beyond Dunbar’s number, the complexity of society overwhelms the human brain. No mass society, regardless of how you care to organize it, can ever work for very long.

Are you not self-deterministic? Are you not rational? This combination of attributes is what makes you unlike a “tree” or a “rock”, or any other object - as you well know. Human exceptionalism is what sets us apart from every other thing on this planet, and what you wish to deny.

Communism (what you are really espousing - your religion) has never worked anywhere, at any time, in any reasonable way. Why? Because Humans are exceptional, and the hive mentality only truly exists for insect colonies.

Does it bother me when someone else uses my computer? No, not when they have obtained my permission and/or trust. Why? Because I traded my effort to obtain my computer, and would expect anyone using it to do so responsibly. Should it be abused, it will cost me more time/money to restore or replace it.

If you are a sovereign individual, then you own yourself, and therefore the fruits of your own labors.

Or not. I don’t think “ownership” is a valid representation of the relationship I have with my self. Be that as it may, however, does the tree “own” itself? Does the rock? The Land? The bird? the deer? If they are not sovereign in themselves then what makes humans special? If they are sovereign then the fruits of your labor are also the fruits of their labor and who “owns” those?

for someone to “take” that widget, and justify it because you were not using it, is an assault on YOU.

And for you to take from the world is an assault on the world.

It is interesting to note that the author is speaking of “ownership” within a tribe/family setting. Does it bother you when your sibling uses your computer? What about a roommate? Some guy down the hall? Why?
–
JimFive

If you are a sovereign individual, then you own yourself, and therefore the fruits of your own labors.

If you own the fruits of your own labors, then your determine how those fruits are distributed.

If you determine distribution, then anyone who claims your fruits, is in effect claiming a part of you!

Thus the foundation of “personal property”. It starts and ends with “who owns you?”.

If you choose to trade some of your labor for the fruits of another (call it a widget), you have realized the benefit of trade by association.

Thus that object, utilized or not, is an extension of YOU by association, and for someone to “take” that widget, and justify it because you were not using it, is an assault on YOU.

All property rights are an extension of your sovereign right to yourself, and your own labor.