Everybody adheres to the non-aggression principle. Property is a corollary of the non-aggression principle, and vice versa, meaning, property ownership is the exclusive right of control, an exclusion that precludes aggression, an uninvited boundary crossing, by non-owners. People disagree, however, on what constitutes property. Some only consider the body and movable personal possessions as property; some consider the body and whatever movable or immovable resource is appropriated or traded for as property; and some consider whatever movable or immovable resource, dead or alive, that has been conquered through superior might as property. There are dozens of disparate theories of property ownership, but every single one promotes the non-aggression principle. My focus should not be so much on promoting the non-aggression principle until after I’ve found common ground on the constitution of property. What do you think? And that’s today’s two cents.