> For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. The thing is, the only reason you can'

> For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. The thing is, the only reason you can't do that is that your next door neighbour will allow a proxy (the Government) to get involved (or rather, has already allowed so as part of the social contract we all "agree" to). If there wasn't someone stronger than you who has a vested interest in keeping things as they are, you decidedly could threaten your neighbour to take over the ownership of the land. "Non-violent" ownership is solely a thing because there's an entity, with more power and ability to be violent than anyone else, which has an interest in keeping it that way. > Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them. That is why I specifically mentioned a proxy.