An ownership isn't an action. It can be seen as an abstract relationship between a possession and a proprietor enforced by a law or consensus.

Not being an action means that an ownership isn't production. Goods and services are exclusively produced, excluding some very rare cases of natural goods like atmospheric oxygen. Human responsibility in production will be limited to the role of one's own personal human capital, such as his time availability, experience, acquired knowledge, skills, mental and physical capabilities, etc. Humans will thus not be responsible for automated production, for example, even if the owner of the automate is his producer. In essence, the producer isn't what he produces and can't claim responsibility of the role of what he produces in production.

We can thus say that wealth compensations can't be given for ownerships of any kind other than personal human capital. Since production for which humans are responsible for is limited, any such compensation will cause a reduction of the pool of wealth. This pool of wealth being used to compensate back producers, its reduction will prevent a compensation for participation in production for the equivalent amount of produced wealth, creating an unfairness or prejudice akin to wage theft.

Anyone can agree or disagree with what I'm saying?