Thanks for your intelligent commentary here. These are complex issues that need lenghty text to do justice to and I have made numerous full posts addressing aspects one by one over time. In my own thinking I tend to define that I focus on ethics and not morals since while everything from both categories ultimately stems from the individual, I view things holistically which inevitably includes all 'outer' interactions of individuals, including family and society levels.

Definitions are of the utmost importance and one seemingly small definitions change in one area can have huge implications in other areas. By defining that even I do not own myself, I am more aligned into a unity of self which does not require me to fragment into pieces. An example of this is 'control' since while many think that 'self control' is a good thing (or even possible), the understanding that 'I AM MY SELF' means that it is actually impossible for me to control my self without fragmenting into 2 artificial parts - the controller and the controlled. The actual reality for many people now is that they truly are fragmented into multiple parts, yet this is dysfunctional and I choose internal unity instead due to my awareness of the need to do so to be balanced.

Using my energy and focus (over time) as I desire does not require a concept of 'self ownership' at all, it is simply 'self acting as desired and willed'. The will need not have much of a concept of any kind of control or ownership and can succeed in all things with balanced when allowed to move freely in a way that feels what is necessary for balance to be fully manifested. If others can try to own me and my time, I do not need to try to defend my energy against that by countering it by owning myself, I only need to be fully free.

if you look to answer the question of what results people ought to pursue rather than what means should be used in that pursuit you will find it lacking.

I'm not 100% sure I understood the meaning of the word 'it' in your words here. The only results that must be pursued (as a bare minimum) are the ones that are required for life to continue and to ensure that no-one is harmed. Self realisation includes within it the understanding that self ownership is not required to deliver everything needed within balance and harmony - but the difference in perspective might be subtle for some at first.

Your last paragraph is a well defined explanation for the justification for property rights and from many perspectives it is accurate, however, there is a core issue that needs to be addressed now: Namely, that the system of 'rights' and their enforcement simply changes the form of the potential violence from being one of individually empowered violence into a monopoly on violence by some kind of organisation - whether that be monarchy, state or some other form of it. In that sense, this system, while seeming just on the surface does not inherently fix very much and only provides a structure to what otherwise would be more freeing. In both cases, what is needed for harmony is enlightenment and compassion - so in both cases, without the necessary enlightenment there will be suffering/imbalance. It is my understanding that ultimately, the enlightened compassion leads to an absence of any requirement for any kind of 'authority structures' to enforce rights since 'rights are only what is right' and if we all know what is right through increased internal awareness and FELT connection to each other - then the complex mental rules based approach can be left behind and instead we can have a real and felt balance for the first time in a very, very long time.

This is why I have focused on emotional/spiritual healing for 15 years as I know from direct experience that it actually is solving our problems at the root level rather than attempting to pre-empt problems using rules and thinking only. Such attempts sometimes succeed on some level but rarely create a lasting peace that feels good to all involved.