On the unargued inflation that property theory inherits.
This is the second of two posts about the immorality of property. I shared the first post yesterday.

Socio-political philosophical musings
On the unargued inflation that property theory inherits.
This is the second of two posts about the immorality of property. I shared the first post yesterday.

A five-part descent into the illusion of autonomy, where biology writes the script, reason provides the excuse, and the self is merely the echo of its own conditioning. This is a follow-up to a recent post on the implausibility of free will.
You are not who you were โ you are what youโve become
โA river doesnโt remember yesterdayโs curve. But we point to it and say: โLook, itโs still the same.โโ
The compatibilist move here is subtler โ less grandiose than autonomy, more domesticated than sovereignty. It says:
Even if you didnโt choose your traits, your past, your preferences โ
youโre still you.
That self has endured.
And moral responsibility flows from that continuity.
But this, too, is sleight of hand.
Because continuity is a pattern, not a person.
And a pattern that evolves without origin is not accountable.
Itโs just happening.
Yes, you are still โyouโ โ but only in the loosest, most cosmetic sense. The fact that your behaviour follows a recognisable pattern does not imply authorship. It merely confirms that systems tend toward stability, or path dependence, or neural canalisation.
You can be stable. You can even be consistent.
But that doesnโt mean youโre choosing anything.
Continuity is not control.
Itโs inertia dressed up as identity.
We mistake persistence for personhood. If someone acts one way for long enough, we assume that behaviour is theirs โ that it reflects their values, their self. But all it really reflects is probability.
โYouโre still you,โ we say.
But which you?
Every iteration of โyouโ is a snapshot โ a chemical event disguised as character.
The recursive defence โ โI can change who I amโ โ also crumbles here. Because you donโt change yourself from nowhere. You change because something changed you. And that change, too, emerges from your condition.
Growth, reflection, habit formation โ these arenโt proofs of freedom. Theyโre signs that adaptive systems accumulate structure.
You are not shaping clay.
You are sediment, layered by time.
We love stories about people who โshowed their true colours.โ
But this is narrative bias โ we flatten a lifeโs complexity into a myth of revelation.
Yet even our finest moments โ courage, restraint, sacrifice โ may be nothing more than compulsions coded as character. You didnโt choose to be brave. You just were.
The brave person says: โI had no choice.โ
The coward says the same.
Who gets the medal is irrelevant to the question of freedom.
So, no โ you are not who you were.
You are what youโve become.
And what youโve become was never yours to shape freely.
Manipulability as Disproof
If your will can be altered without your knowledge, was it ever truly yours?
Identity is a fiction; it doesn’t exist. It’s a contrivance, a makeshift construct, a label slapped on to an entity with some blurry amalgam of shared experiences. But this isn’t just street wisdom; some of history’s sharpest minds have said as much.
“There are no facts, only interpretations.”
โ Friedrich Nietzsche
Think about Hume, who saw identity as nothing more than a bundle of perceptions, devoid of any central core. Or Nietzsche, who embraced the chaos and contradictions within us, rejecting any fixed notion of self.
Edmund Dantes chose to become the Count of Monte Cristo, but what choice do we have? We all have control over our performative identities, a concept that Judith Butler would argue isn’t limited to gender but applies to the very essence of who we are.
“I don’t feel that it is necessary to know exactly what I am. The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning.”
โ Michel Foucault
But here’s the kicker, identities are a paradox. Just ask Michel Foucault, who’d say our sense of self is shaped not by who we are but by power, society, and external forces.
You think you know who you are? Well, Erik Erikson might say your identity’s still evolving, shifting through different stages of life. And what’s “normal” anyway? Try to define it, and you’ll end up chasing shadows, much like Derrida’s deconstruction of stable identities.
“No such things as selves exist in the world: Nobody ever was or had a self.”
โ Thomas Metzinger
“He seemed like a nice man,” how many times have we heard that line after someone’s accused of a crime? It’s a mystery, but Thomas Metzinger might tell you that the self is just an illusion, a by-product of the brain.
Nations, they’re the same mess. Like Heraclitus’s ever-changing river, a nation is never the same thing twice. So what the hell is a nation, anyway? What are you defending as a nationalist? It’s a riddle that echoes through history, resonating with the philosophical challenges to identity itself.
“I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception.”
โ David Hume
If identity and nations are just made-up stories, what’s all the fuss about? Why do people get so worked up, even ready to die, for these fictions? Maybe it’s fear, maybe it’s pride, or maybe it’s because, as Kierkegaard warned, rationality itself can seem mad in a world gone astray.
In a world where everything’s shifting and nothing’s set in stone, these fictions offer some solid ground. But next time you’re ready to go to the mat for your identity or your nation, take a minute and ask yourself: what the hell am I really fighting for? What am I clinging to?