Do We Own?

[Walking Void]

I have been wondering, for a very long duration of time, to what cause and for what reason do we own things. Now... do not immediately assume that I am some Hippie. I am as Hippie as I am a hippo (wait... that means I am somewhat similar...). I do not dispute tree rights to foresting industries although there are more climate-friendly ways to get the benefits of wood. I do not engage in spiritual activities in the wilderness. I do however engage in philosophical debates and discussions. As is this.

I am questioning the principle of property. Again, you can interpret this as Hippie or Communist... again, I am as relatable... as rankable to a title as the moon is known to be cheesy.

I will not be hypocritical in this discussion that I am introducing (but I will ease on my grammar). I will state that I own a laptop, smartphone, and car, among other articles. But I do not view these objects as being something that I own as the terms of property describe. Nonetheless, claiming to own something is not even a reasonable assessment no matter how you can analyze. Sure, in this economic life, most if not all is ruled by this viewpoint that humans possess objects.

I argue that we use items, simple. Items are tools... for any given purpose. Sure, some objects may be readily with us, some may even be a daily factor in life as would a baseball cap to some, but these objects are not things that we rule. You can have a baseball cap, but I can take it by force and literally steal it. Then I can call it my own and not yours regardless of it being stolen or not. But we do have law against theft, and to many degrees I do support this law especially when it consequently damages the victim.

Things that we own are things that we, individually, undeniably control. Our minds. Our bodies directly under the mind. No one else can control these "subjects" with these same subjects being submissive to the control. Because after all, only minds in the entire universe are known to manipulate. Even if a big man forces a little man to clap the little man's hands, the little man's hands were only subjected to that decision, that force, from the big man while never choosing to clap themselves. The mind is the paramount of control and possession. If this is true perhaps we only think we possess because the brain suggests that. If we truly had universal control and ownership could we not just ignite the air at a whim? Materialize a tasty liquor? For ignition, this does not happen because it is unreasonable. As is the principle of "ownership". Ignition requires multiple factors and steps to take place. Air, combustible fuel, thermal energy (sometimes from kinetic energy as friction).

I am not intentionally attacking anybody who disagrees with this pondering. Specifically questioning property. If you are offended by what I am saying them I sincerely apologize as thousands if not millions if not billions actively think that human-invented ownership is a real principle of life, though I suppose my apology is meaningless until you forgive me. Humans have for the longest time been greedy. Whether it be competing for mates, food, domain/shelter, or the miscellaneous, we have singled out another in the survival of the fittest. If it even is a competition. We are not forced to or intentionally compete with each other, we simply adapt to reality to survive, regardless of other animals or family. And do we not accomplish more when we share the same goals as a team? We gained hair to insulate our heads (among other benefits), we did not take hair from other species to do this. Evolution will walk you through this. Perhaps property is a phase in social and mental development for humans. Before we did have these sentient brains, we did not rely on owning things to survive. Perhaps we confused the need to absorb nutritional energy from food sources with some sort of obsession. You can argue that many animals such as lions claim territory, thus ownership. But what is happening there? Are lions truly asserting to possess an area of space on the dirt? Wait, are lions not an animal that settles? Do they not claim an area simply because their pride consisting of multiple other lions is momentarily fixed to 1 place? When they are threatened by intruders is it not because another animal is in the same controlled area where they sleep and breed and the sort? Ask yourself some questions.

If you were to take my smartphone by theft, I would surely be mixed of anger and dread. But those are just feelings, and they dwindle down or change quite easily. When you do take an object from me, I do not directly suffer or benefit physically. I do however in the economic aspect, but economics are aside the point since they are synthetic too. In fact, nothing immediately changes a person when property changes. Realistically, there are consequences, like not being able to use mobile Internet and calling... but there is nothing significant physically about "owning" that smartphone. Because I rely on the economy and my own personal money for day to day living, when I lose property... I suffer. Even if the property is a structural component itself like cash is.

Thanks!

[KichigaiNeko]

So essentially, you are pondering the transient nature of life?

A long thought spiral but yes. Our minds are the only thing we truly own. Everything else is "borrowed" and used for a time

[Gilgamesh]

I agree.

For example; I always cringe when someone says white people stole America from the natives. Nobody has an undeniable claim to land. Land that is owned is only a social structure imposed and followed by human beings. Although, it can also be not-followed by human beings if they so wish. Stronger, more intelligent people came here and dominated. There was no stealing.

A little ranty, I guess.

[genkaus]

---

I have been wondering, for a very long duration of time, to what cause and for what reason do we own things. Now... do not immediately assume that I am some Hippie. I am as Hippie as I am a hippo (wait... that means I am somewhat similar...). I do not dispute tree rights to foresting industries although there are more climate-friendly ways to get the benefits of wood. I do not engage in spiritual activities in the wilderness. I do however engage in philosophical debates and discussions. As is this.

I am questioning the principle of property. Again, you can interpret this as Hippie or Communist... again, I am as relatable... as rankable to a title as the moon is known to be cheesy.

I will not be hypocritical in this discussion that I am introducing (but I will ease on my grammar). I will state that I own a laptop, smartphone, and car, among other articles. But I do not view these objects as being something that I own as the terms of property describe. Nonetheless, claiming to own something is not even a reasonable assessment no matter how you can analyze. Sure, in this economic life, most if not all is ruled by this viewpoint that humans possess objects.

I argue that we use items, simple. Items are tools... for any given purpose. Sure, some objects may be readily with us, some may even be a daily factor in life as would a baseball cap to some, but these objects are not things that we rule. You can have a baseball cap, but I can take it by force and literally steal it. Then I can call it my own and not yours regardless of it being stolen or not. But we do have law against theft, and to many degrees I do support this law especially when it consequently damages the victim.

Things that we own are things that we, individually, undeniably control. Our minds. Our bodies directly under the mind. No one else can control these "subjects" with these same subjects being submissive to the control. Because after all, only minds in the entire universe are known to manipulate. Even if a big man forces a little man to clap the little man's hands, the little man's hands were only subjected to that decision, that force, from the big man while never choosing to clap themselves. The mind is the paramount of control and possession. If this is true perhaps we only think we possess because the brain suggests that. If we truly had universal control and ownership could we not just ignite the air at a whim? Materialize a tasty liquor? For ignition, this does not happen because it is unreasonable. As is the principle of "ownership". Ignition requires multiple factors and steps to take place. Air, combustible fuel, thermal energy (sometimes from kinetic energy as friction).

I am not intentionally attacking anybody who disagrees with this pondering. Specifically questioning property. If you are offended by what I am saying them I sincerely apologize as thousands if not millions if not billions actively think that human-invented ownership is a real principle of life, though I suppose my apology is meaningless until you forgive me. Humans have for the longest time been greedy. Whether it be competing for mates, food, domain/shelter, or the miscellaneous, we have singled out another in the survival of the fittest. If it even is a competition. We are not forced to or intentionally compete with each other, we simply adapt to reality to survive, regardless of other animals or family. And do we not accomplish more when we share the same goals as a team? We gained hair to insulate our heads (among other benefits), we did not take hair from other species to do this. Evolution will walk you through this. Perhaps property is a phase in social and mental development for humans. Before we did have these sentient brains, we did not rely on owning things to survive. Perhaps we confused the need to absorb nutritional energy from food sources with some sort of obsession. You can argue that many animals such as lions claim territory, thus ownership. But what is happening there? Are lions truly asserting to possess an area of space on the dirt? Wait, are lions not an animal that settles? Do they not claim an area simply because their pride consisting of multiple other lions is momentarily fixed to 1 place? When they are threatened by intruders is it not because another animal is in the same controlled area where they sleep and breed and the sort? Ask yourself some questions.

If you were to take my smartphone by theft, I would surely be mixed of anger and dread. But those are just feelings, and they dwindle down or change quite easily. When you do take an object from me, I do not directly suffer or benefit physically. I do however in the economic aspect, but economics are aside the point since they are synthetic too. In fact, nothing immediately changes a person when property changes. Realistically, there are consequences, like not being able to use mobile Internet and calling... but there is nothing significant physically about "owning" that smartphone. Because I rely on the economy and my own personal money for day to day living, when I lose property... I suffer. Even if the property is a structural component itself like cash is.

Thanks!

---

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.

[Walking Void]

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.

[genkaus]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be fair Genk, priority use is not ownership and would eliminate every problem you posed. It'd be a practical nightmare..granted....lol. Personally, I like owning things, so I;d just gravitate towards a community that had a concept of ownership even if there were no overarching legal basis for such. In such a community, the question "do we own" is easy to answer. Yes, "we" own....even if you do not.

I'd also add that what void appears to be talking about would be a sort of ownership itself. Communal, perhaps, but ownership nevertheless (what happens when two different groups of people both claim simultaneous requirement of said object?). Which again, makes the question "do we own" a fairly amusing one, even if only mechanically so.

[genkaus]

To be fair Genk, priority use is not ownership and would eliminate every problem you posed. It'd be a practical nightmare..granted....lol. Personally, I like owning things, so I;d just gravitate towards a community that had a concept of ownership even if there were no overarching legal basis for such. In such a community, the question "do we own" is easy to answer. Yes, "we" own....even if you do not.

I don't think priority use is the answer - especially where deferred usage is concerned.

Suppose I buy a piece of fallow agricultural land and choose to develop it. However, since it is not very fertile right now and I happen to have other sources of income, I choose not to cultivate it but simply spend years enriching it. I'm investing my time and effort for the future when I'm old. However, within priority use, I either use the land now or let someone else use it - thereby devaluing my investment.

I'd also add that what void appears to be talking about would be a sort of ownership itself. Communal, perhaps, but ownership nevertheless (what happens when two different groups of people both claim simultaneous requirement of said object?). Which again, makes the question "do we own" a fairly amusing one, even if only mechanically so.

I do recognize communal ownership to be a valid solution in many cases - especially where things built and maintained by the government are concerned. For example, I'd assume that all natural resources (except for human resources) in a country belong to the government and thus are public property unless a private entity buys it from them. However, I wouldn't consider the products of an individual's labor to automatically be communal property without him being paid for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think priority use is the answer - especially where deferred usage is concerned.

To be very clear, neither do I...but it does handle those messy situations.

Suppose I buy a piece of fallow agricultural land and choose to develop it. However, since it is not very fertile right now and I happen to have other sources of income, I choose not to cultivate it but simply spend years enriching it. I'm investing my time and effort for the future when I'm old. However, within priority use, I either use the land now or let someone else use it - thereby devaluing my investment.

If you're working the tilth and fertility it's not actually "out of use" - it's just not producing crops. I'd say you have priority use and you're using it. Granted, it's not as cut and dry as our current system of ownership and that;s why I prefer something more like what we have - but the framework for solving such a dispute is there.

I do recognize communal ownership to be a valid solution in many cases - especially where things built and maintained by the government are concerned. For example, I'd assume that all natural resources (except for human resources) in a country belong to the government and thus are public property unless a private entity buys it from them. However, I wouldn't consider the products of an individual's labor to automatically be communal property without him being paid for it.

Communal ownership is also a great stopgap between private and redundant ownership of the means of production (say, combines for every farmer) and the private sector offering a service that amounts to the same practical effect (custom combine). Keeping private rights of ownership as a strong foundation, we still have the option of communal ownership through contracts (and stressing a culture of preferring communal ownership contracts on top of private ownership wherever applicable seems to be wise). I like having both options, personally, which is why I like the system that allows for both.

[genkaus]

If you're working the tilth and fertility it's not actually "out of use" - it's just not producing crops. I'd say you have priority use and you're using it. Granted, it's not as cut and dry as our current system of ownership and that;s why I prefer something more like what we have - but the framework for solving such a dispute is there.

I think you missed the point. Let me clarify it by another example. I buy a portion of mining land and develop only one section of it - leaving the rest completely unused and undisturbed - with the sole intention of using it in the future when the current mine runs dry. What would be the position of priority use in that case?

Communal ownership is also a great stopgap between private and redundant ownership of the means of production (say, combines for every farmer) and the private sector offering a service that amounts to the same practical effect (custom combine). Keeping private rights of ownership as a strong foundation, we still have the option of communal ownership through contracts (and stressing a culture of preferring communal ownership contracts on top of private ownership wherever applicable seems to be wise). I like having both options, personally, which is why I like the system that allows for both.

Not much objection here. But how would you create a culture of preference for communal ownership?

The problem with communal ownership usually is that the responsibility of proper usage falls to everyone - which means, it effectively falls to no one. Which is not to say that it couldn't work, but that it would often fail unless a majority within the community chooses to be responsible.