Fair enough, but that’s just a theoretical. In a society of humans giving up your self-ownership is 99% of the time mean someone else gets to own you. The only way to escape that is to go somewhere where no human will ever find you.

Yet that alone is a decision you can’t make if you weren’t the master of yourself, your self-owner, and is in fact opposite of giving up your self-ownership.

Maybe. Who knows, telepathy might exist!

That’s more likely to be wireless communication between than thinking exactly with the same mind.

It is possible for something not to be owned by anyone. The implication is still false.

This would fit with saying that no two people can think with the same mind, which is true.

Maybe. Who knows, telepathy might exist!

You do own an idea while it is in your head, but once you choose to release it (write it down and give or sell it to someone, or just say it out loud) you obviously by your own will let it go. Ideas aren’t “things”. They are basically thoughts themselves and because of that multiple people can own them (carry them in their mind) at the same time.

I said no two people can own the same “thing”, not the same “thought”.

That doesn’t make sense. If nobody can own anything, obviously nobody can own you. Faked shared/nonexistent ownership like is done in communism and actual absence of the concept of ownership are not the same thing!

The whole point of this blog entry is that property ownership is inseparable from liberty and also inseparable from human being, thus saying that property ownership doesn’t exist at all doesn’t mean it wont still continue existing anyway. The consequence of believing falsely into non-existence of something is obviously a total ignorance of it and inability to deal with like you would if you admitted its existance.

No two persons can own the same thing…

Watch out! In the first quoted bit you open the door for the possibility of owning ideas, and in the second you claim no two can own the same thing. You do know the patently absurd (pun intended) consequences of that, right?

To deny ownership altogether is to deny ownership of self. This implies that someone else owns you…

That doesn’t make sense. If nobody can own anything, obviously nobody can own you. Faked shared/nonexistent ownership like is done in communism and actual absence of the concept of ownership are not the same thing!