Heres what ive been thinking. The ego requires concept of property to exist, because it can only exist thanks to the physical machine(the subjects of action) that maintains its existance, and every action is manifested by that machine, or is the subject of that machine. In that sense, typing on a keyboard becomes the property of the ego while it is being consciously used. It is impossible to act without having the property, the subjects of the action, to carry it out.
It also describes property as a sort of temporary entity that exists only as long as it is used as a subject for action, unlike general long term property right systems.
This doesnt show that murder is wrong, but does show that every ego necessarily uses a concept of property to act, so it describes how a natural system of property exists objectively.
This binds well with an utilitarian justification for Lockean homesteading property theory, as it maximises the oppurtunities to use property without damaging what was once objectively other egos' property.
You're equivocating between property and concept of property.
Why anarchy fails
AJ: You're equivocating between property and concept of property.
I'm not sure where he did equivocate. Every individual must have a conception of property. Property only exists conceptualy. I don't think it follows that there is any "natural" system of property, only that is necessarry to have a system of property if one wishes to act or do anything. I'm not sure what point he is trying to prove to someone or how this is somehow a new idea, though.
For example, here: "The ego requires concept of property to exist, because it can only exist thanks to the physical machine(the subjects of action) that maintains its existance..."