Do you realize how easy it is to deconstruct the definitions you rely on?
What does it mean "created from your own labor" for example? We apply labor to existing things and we transform them as a continuous process. We don't manifest them in one step out of vacuum. So "create with labor" is a fuzzy concept at best. You don't create anything. At what precise point does this property that "belongs to all" become your property? You draw sharp divide between those two categories, so surely there's a sharp divide in terms of time and action that causes said property to shift those categories.
I see a wild tree, I cut it off. Is it mine now? Not yet, so I chop it up, is it mine? No? So I take a chunk and make it into an owl figure. Which precise stroke of my instruments turned this tree from shared property into my own property? Or am I being given imaginary shares of this property as I work on it, so it's 10% mine, then 11% mine, then 15% mine...
The rest of these definitions are similarly meaningless if you explore them at depth.
It doesn't mean that as a system they're bad. As long as you have objective proof they work in reality (not just in our imagination). But you need to realize in terms of "correctness" they're arbitrary. In fact, there's no such thing as objective ethics. So to declare things are ethical or unethical in a universal way is non-sequitur.
A concept is only as useful as how applicable it is for achieving certain goals. If it's just a self-referencing system that feels good, but no one has realized it, or even worse, many have tried and keep failing at it... then you have nothing.
What does it mean "created from your own labor" for example? We apply labor to existing things and we transform them as a continuous process. We don't manifest them in one step out of vacuum. So "create with labor" is a fuzzy concept at best. You don't create anything. At what precise point does this property that "belongs to all" become your property? You draw sharp divide between those two categories, so surely there's a sharp divide in terms of time and action that causes said property to shift those categories.
I see a wild tree, I cut it off. Is it mine now? Not yet, so I chop it up, is it mine? No? So I take a chunk and make it into an owl figure. Which precise stroke of my instruments turned this tree from shared property into my own property? Or am I being given imaginary shares of this property as I work on it, so it's 10% mine, then 11% mine, then 15% mine...
The rest of these definitions are similarly meaningless if you explore them at depth.
It doesn't mean that as a system they're bad. As long as you have objective proof they work in reality (not just in our imagination). But you need to realize in terms of "correctness" they're arbitrary. In fact, there's no such thing as objective ethics. So to declare things are ethical or unethical in a universal way is non-sequitur.
A concept is only as useful as how applicable it is for achieving certain goals. If it's just a self-referencing system that feels good, but no one has realized it, or even worse, many have tried and keep failing at it... then you have nothing.