(July 8, 2013 at 6:16 pm)Walking Void Wrote: 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.
Why is that unreasonable?
It'd seem that you understand the basic concept behind human rights. Right to ownership is an extension of your right to life. You have the right to sustain your own life using the products of your mind and labor that that wouldn't be possible unless you have the right to use the products of your mind and labor. Right to life without right to ownership would mean that you can live, but you cannot use the products of your mind and effort to sustain your life - which would make it meaningless.
I guess what you are asking is, why doesn't everyone automatically have the right to use what I produced. That would make the concept meaningless as well.
Objects, by their nature, have limited usage. You can only use them a particular number of times with with a particular number using it at a time. When an object is used to generate some other kind of value - like when a patented recipe is used to generate monetary profit - then that value is limited as well. If the said object is the product of my time and effort, then it represents portion of my life and anyone else's use of it would constitute an infringement upon that right. If I intend to have all the use and value that object can produce to contribute towards my growth and survival, then anyone else's use of it automatically hinders my survivability. You may argue that each specific infringement is small enough not to matter, but once I grant that others have the right to infringe, then I have no say in the quantity or size of infringement.
For example, suppose I were to dig a well in my property, but don't claim sole ownership and declare it a community property, what do you think will be the consequences? I cannot dictate who will draw water from it, it would be open to everyone. I cannot say how much they should draw nor can I lay down rules about how it should be used. So, while before I could have used it to supply water for my whole household, with all of my family able to take 3 baths a day and fill our swimming pool as well, now, I have to wait in like everyone else for bucket and hope that it doesn't run dry by the time my turn comes.
