[We might imagine that the word “property” taps into the archaic attribute of “holding onto some things and letting others go”.

However, the word only belongs to a system of differences.  Rousseau depicted the difference this way:

“Private property” is the same as “civilization” and different than … “what?” … “collective ownership and utopia (a stand in for ‘the Lebenswelt that we evolved in’)”?

Rousseau’s difference is precisely the opposite of how “private property” should be differentiated.  “Private property” is the same as “freedom” and different than “ownership by elites of the think^group” and “slavery”.  There is no “utopia” where a person is “free” and “ownership is collective”.

But there is “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in”, where “belonging to the group was more important than any thing that you could hold onto”.  Is that the same as “collective ownership”?  Is that the same as, “The collective is more important than anything that we can hold onto and call our own.”?

All forms of collectivism appeal for a return to “the Lebenswelt before speech-alone talk” because that is precisely the world that we evolved in.  We innately anticipate this Lebenswelt.  We feel its presence in our bones. Our genes script proteins that enable cells to construct bodies that tell us that this wonderful Lebenswelt would be there, if only … what?  If only we destroyed our current Lebenswelt?

The unspeakable premise is that, if we annihilate our current civilization, “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in” will magically appear.

Unfortunately, that is precisely the world that we can never return to.  Whenever the words “collective” or “ideal” are used, there is a think^group that has no appreciation of the primal nature of its appeal.]