The idea of property is so deeply woven into the dominant culture’s worldview that few actually make the effort to realize what it means: division and deprivation. Let’s look at the first three (the pertinent) entries of Wikitionary’s listing:

Etymology
From Middle English /Anglo-Norman proprete < Middle French propreté < Old French propriete (modern propriété), itself < Latin proprietas < proprius ‘own’.

1. Something that is owned.

   Leave those books alone! They are my property.

2. A piece of real estate, such as a parcel of land.

   There is a large house on the property.

   Important types of property include real property (land), personal property (other physical possessions), and intellectual property (rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.).

3. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing.

Did you notice the commonality here? They’re all based on the concept of ownership, which in itself, is nothing more than a social agreement. Consequently, if you live outside the boundaries (physically or logically) of a specific culture or society, the principles of property and ownership cease to have any meaning. I’ve long found the idea of land “ownership” absurd: for example, even if I fulfilled the legal requirements (again, simply social agreements) of the state and acquired the deed (another abstraction representing title) for a given parcel, then that “ownership” only applies for the course of my life. Should my ashes be scattered there, the land would own me… I would literally become part of the soil.

Therefore, the idea of property is—at its root—merely a statement that by claiming ownership, you are denying others access to what was once available to the community, hence theft.

So of course, the natural progression of this hubris is the act of claiming ownership to ideas: intellectual property. With the advent of software, we witnessed an acceleration of efforts by companies and individuals to cash in on their work by superimposing patents and similar legal vehicles on their ideas. Although that’s offensive enough in its own right (not to mention ultimately silly), defending and prosecuting IP cases has become a means of revenue generation among tech companies. The one with whom I’m currently employed is deeply embroiled in a contentious case with another titan of the industry: too bad they can’t both lose.

Bad enough, you might say. But you’d be wrong. The obscenity of property has yet to plumb its ugliest depths: there should be no surprise that this should occur: If You Believe in IP, How Do You Teach Others? Universities seek to allow claims of ownership for lectures:

Some Harvard professors are taking very seriously their “intellectual property rights” and have claimed copyright to the ideas that they spread in their classrooms. What prompted this was a website in which students posted their notes to help other students.

Ran Prieur insightfully observes in a blog entry that inspired this one:

“When you think about it, the most exceptional people should be the most generous. If you’re truly confident in your ability to create things of value, you don’t mind losing everything, because you can just make more.”

Richard Stallman, a key proponent of free software (via GNU), posted an eloquent dismissal of IP.

Unlike the horror of insecurity personified by the hungry ghosts of Wall Street, abandoning the idea of ownership and property enables a freedom impossible to experience otherwise.

Who is richer: Henry David Thoreau or Lloyd Blankfein?