All these rules sound arbitrary, though. As the owner of the property, I respect your generosity and care for the planet. The reason you can dictate what is and is not acceptable use of your property is because of ownership. Otherwise, (without a solid, clearly defined property norm, based on objective reality, that is) you could make no case against an individual who might show up up to chop down your trees, or move into your house.
That is what I am getting at here.
Yes we are in agreement. Without the central aurhority supporting ones ownership/stewardship it is hard for me to imagine how ownership.would work in a fully libratarian or voluntary societies without a common community standard of what is good stewardship..
It is my feeling that a shared community approved ownship, with a mindset of stewardship, may be a workable solution. Practical examples may be found in some First Nations communities where the stewardship mindset may be more prevalent than outside of some of those communities. We find south american tribal peoples standing up to corporate mining and amazon raping like good stewards. We see west coast native communities turning down Big Oil payoffs to protect the water as good stewards should do.
Ownership is when you mix the labor with the land.
You then own the resources gained from that land.
Those resources can be traded with other people for their resources/goods/labor/whatever.
Stewardship doesn't lead to ownership.
It's explained in detail in this free book:
https://archive.org/details/ASpontaneousOrder0
The only part I don't agree with is using the word spontaneous. It's just not centrally organized. But the order is intentionally created by humans.