Hi Foster and everyone!
I’ve spent two decades on a question that, as far as I can tell, no one in the freedom and sovereignty movements is taking seriously: what would it look like to structurally eliminate ownership rather than protect it from state encroachment?
You’ve identified the non-aggression principle as foundational. But ownership itself—the right to exclude—is an aggressive stance toward everyone else by default. The current system says “deprive all, share only if you want.” That’s the structure of coercion baked into property itself, regardless of whether a state enforces it.
What I’m proposing inverts this: “share with all, deprive only when absolutely necessary.”
This isn’t collective ownership or commons—those just relocate the excluding party. This eliminates exclusion as the default stance. It addresses the root pattern that makes centralized control possible in the first place.
I’m not looking for endorsement or amplification. I’m looking for people willing to engage the principle on its own terms—to show me where it’s incoherent if it is, or to help develop it if it isn’t.
The attached article lays out the framework and addresses the obvious objections. Ten-minute read.
https://reloveution.substack.com/p/the-death-vigil-must-en
If this lands, I’d welcome a conversation.
Millard J. Melnyk
reloveution.org
