Quote:I'm not sure what exactly you understand by the term "ownership", but my view is that it simply mean "right to use". This right - like all other human rights - are invented, social concepts. It does not imply any sort of rule over the item - that you can use it in any way you may imagine. It simply indicates whether you have the right to use that object or not.
You are correct in assuming that in the most basic form, we can be said to own our own bodies and minds. Ownership of objects is an extension of this principle. When you work for something or create something, it is deemed to be a product of your mind and your effort -and so you should "own" it. Economics enters after this stage - where once you own something, you can then exchange it something you don't yet own.
Yes, I understand what "ownership" is and it is a right to use. The unreasonable bit is about not allowing other people to use the same objects regardless of consent. If an object is used carefully, is there a necessity to charge fines and give jail time? Human rights tell us what is acceptable according to survival. To infringe upon those rights is to hinder one's survivability. Ownership of objects does not have to be anything more than having something available for usage. But people do make it so, and I am lead to think what kind of selfish motivations one may use to keep themselves in power so long as they are alive.
