Yes. Even if you do come up with a definitive proof of something you still have the problem of some geezer with a shotgun ignoring all of your logic.
4. Except that it does, and is, based on the simple fact of the material universe, that only you can occupy the given physical space at a time, and only you can control you. You are not your central nervous system and that was never the claim. The existence of outside property necessarily follows.
This part is the core part so I’m dropping the rest of it. In fact, this was what the lost post was about. You can go look up industrial disasters under Capitalism and the like on your own.
Except that it does, and is, based on the simple fact of the material universe, that only you can occupy the given physical space at a time
Actually, given the extreme slowness of the cycle frequency of the human brain, some kind of weird neural multiplexing could probably be devised in some distant era.
and only you can control you. You are not your central nervous system and that was never the claim.
If this were true, both drugs and brain damage could not alter the statistical distribution of human behavior. Instead, all evidence strongly suggests that influence on the brain brings about influence on the mind. That holds even if you define “you” in a holistic manner where it’s a combination of hardware+software+other things, or define “you” as some extra-physical phenomenon/entity that interacts with the brain.
Given the available evidence, it should even be possible, with the right technology and interfaces, to insert thoughts into peoples’ minds.
only you can control you.
Even if this were true, and brains were unhackable and beyond the realm of the physical, that would only prove “only you can control you”. It would not make property exist. It does not logically follow that only you should control you, only that you can.
If that world existed, and some entity arose that could violate that rule and modify people according to its desires, why should it not?
The existence of outside property necessarily follows.
It does not. It doesn’t even imply the existence of internal property as a morally-binding rule. What is the chain of logic from “only you can control you” to “outside property exists and is morally binding”?
With that in mind, let’s get your definition of “property”, seeing as “property” as it exists in the real world exists only insomuch as it is enforced, and is violated constantly.