That was just one example of how there can be different kinds of agreements, as long as everyone's on the same page. Even now, there are communities where mutual ownership is the basis, and what I am putting forth is much more in line with the many cultures who did not have a concept of ownership and operated from a place of stewardship, interdependance, and respect (for each other, the land, the resources, and the animals)

I don't feel that I've strawmanned anything by asking questions and pointing out that there is a jump between "we need agreements to reduce conflict" and "we need these exact agreements". Where is the mischaracterization?

Let's agree that I can come over to your house, stay for three months rent free and eat all of your food. If not, why not? The land upon which your dwelling stands is not your property. It is everyone's.

This is certainly a strawman, as I've laid out different possibilities for agreements that different cultures/communities could have around land, including ones where that situation would be fine (if that was the "property norm"). We've also gone over this in our previous conversations; humans not owning the Earth doesn't mean that humans can't have their own spaces to feel safe in, or that they can't have agreements around the use of the land they live on. I agreed in the post that humans need agreements to reduce conflict, but your responses seem to be based on the idea that everyone is just doing whatever they want, that there are no agreements, and that people want to take advantage of each other (another benefit of shifting from ownership and separateness to connection & interdependance is that destructive behaviors like that will naturally reduce as well)

I've also just edited the post, adding a section on land stewardship.