Are you saying that people should not become too addicted to possessions?

Yes. I would change the formulation a little, though, and say: I myself would like to learn to become less dependent on possessions. I am not about to dictate the pace and form of other peoples development. As you said down below. I see that you see the problematic effects it can have when dictation becomes strong.

I generally talk about legality. But you are mostly talking about what individuals should do as people, as individuals, on a personal level, morally, socially, locally, spiritually, physically, practically, psychologically

Correct, I do. I have a reason for that.
To make a provocative statement: First of all, I don't care about the political law. Only in the second step does it become important again. I am a social worker.
I sometimes advise married couples who are separating and express conflicts with the handling and custody of the children. Before they even think about their own intentions and wishes, they ask about the legal regulations. My reaction to this is: "We can look at these regulations. But I want to ask you first: What exactly do you as a mother and father want for your child? What do you need for yourself? What do you think would be possible and sensible to clarify and negotiate for the future?"

If I were to go into the official law immediately, then the clients would have been deprived of an important experience: That they are able to create a reasonable basis for this particular situation based on their personal and individual needs. This may indeed differ from the law in that, for example, the amount of child support payments may differ from the amounts indicated by the law. A law is there for guidance only, it is intended to provide support for fully contentious cases. It is not intended to interfere in private matters, but to provide justice for those who are in the weakest position among those in dispute. In this case: the children.

My experience with this is good. I try to provide the adults in dispute with a basis for negotiation and a space in which they do not develop or further nurture enmities through all-party moderation. This often requires very direct, albeit friendly words. If I send out even the slightest hint of one-partiality, I have lost the clients. The consequences can be severe. Instead of calming down a conflict, I would have to answer for having fueled it even further. It's dangerous to be, for example, on the side of the woman and turn against the man. It's not up to me to judge them but to support them both, no matter how I see it fit. They must come to terms.

I transfer this method to the micro and macro level of human interaction.

A gun will not protect me from tyranny, since tyrants always have the more powerful weapons and violence than I have. When tyranny has grown to the point where it has become dictatorial, violent, depriving freedom, a weapon in my hand will not change that. I can only ensure peaceful coexistence in peacetime by using my means and abilities to resolve conflicts privately and professionally.

If you imagine that a shattered relationship turns a man and a woman into enemies, what do you think both will do if they fail to come to an amicable resolution? They will divert their frustration and anger to others, even to their own children and those they consider guilty of their plight. ... You can also use a weapon metaphorically by taking sides with either the man or woman, encouraging him or her to take revenge, to get back at the other, to "bleed" him or her in the separation. Whenever people interfere in other people's relationships in such a way that they transmit their own bad experiences and speak of disappointment, deceit or cheating, they do more harm than good.

I think a good way out is to take both sides and never let yourself be used as an opponent by one or the other party. This testifies to human strength, understanding and love for being human.

Sorry, I got carried away a little.

I am relieved to find in you some interfaces and understanding. We can have a good argument and separate with the confirmation that what we seek for, is consensus.