This definition seems patchy.
What of things a person "has" but has not explicitly claimed?
What of things gained through bluff and threat, handed over willingly or from fear?
What of things made unowned through the killing of the owner, which remain unclaimed?
For a definition of ownership to be true, surely it must be negatable because if everything is universally owned, there seems to be no definition.
This distinction seems to imply that some things which could be owned are not, or that some people who might own things do not.
Thus to be fair, it seems my question carries the implicit premise that not everyone can own everything all the time. Perhaps obvious, but some might reject the premise of the question on those grounds and thus reject the concept of ownership.
I assume in good faith those who proffer an answer accept the premise of the question
>What of things a person "has" but has not explicitly claimed?
egoist fag >What of things gained through bluff and threat, handed over willingly or from fear?
you are gay >What of things made unowned through the killing of the owner, which remain unclaimed?
try thinking for yourself instead of femininely asking your leading questions, homosexual
If you have no position on ownership, you have no credibility using ownership as a premise. It's laughable to call someone else a thief if you cannot first justify yourself as an owner
And I say "has" specifically to avoid inserting a sneaky egoist premise, define "has" however you see fit
In German law, you discriminate between ownership and possession. You can have rightful and not rightful possession of a thing. This distinction should help you
Yes, but ironically possession is a physical thing and it gets mingled with rights. It's that weird being, that grants you right, though being not a real right but a thing of reality (physical possession). So unrightful possession is a thing that can only exist because there is ownership, which exists because of the state.
I mean, what would Unrightful Possession be in a world without rights?
You do not need a state for ownership, it is a natural right 440622612
It is nice idea that you have a state to defend your right but as we have experienced, it is not working. I am living in a Stasi situation right now. Banks, financial system, tax system, welfare state, free education are all the same instrument of dominance against the individual. I really mean it
You need a state for ownership in the sense we mean it. Otherwise you are not really an OWNER, but merely a possessor. I understand your reasoning with natural rights, but how can you say you own something if you can't claim it back with the help of the state. Without a state there isn't real ownership in the modern sense.
You can say you own the thing somebody took from you, but can you get it back? In a world with a state you can through the state, as you own the right.
But in a world without a state you simply lost possession.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not true, you have a right to develop as a human being in dignity. For that, you need ownership for cultural attributes and civilization. The state could take care of that, but as we experience, it does not. It takes away everything that you have and could have made.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Man, you are talking about way too metaphorical stuff. We are talking about ownership over things.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It is not over things. They are part of yourself because you can't live and prosper without them
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You can defend your ownership e.g. by locking your bicycle in a space that is not accessible by thieves. You must defend your ownership against the state by minizing its influence. Please do not fall for the state's fake health, education and security system. Eg my car was damaged in an accident. I have proven that the other driver was 100 % at fault. Yet, I neither get a free rental car from the insurance, nor do the police even hand out their protocol of the accident. They just wait what happens next and then make a trade off. There is rule of law, it is all about power.
Adding more layers of violence solves this. Your heirs and the state generally use their implied (or explicit) violence to validate further claims of ownership.
it's not that complicated. You own something if you are in control of it. If it's from stealing, earning, creating whatever that doesn't matter. What does matter at that point is a notion of fairness, which only comes into play when people conspire to protect their claims. "ownership" can then be seen through the lens of community or law. People can dispute claims of ownership verbally but that is only an appeal. People can revoke legal ownership but that is only a demand. This is all the same point of fact that ownership is contingent on your ability to maintain control of whatever it is, if need be.
They're not conceptually different unless ownership is distinct by some contract and at that point why ask the question. It would just be defined by the contract. It's obvious that OP was talking about something more fundamental then semantics. Besides, possessing something and having control over it are certainly different.
Like, when a demon possess your body and mind, your little cucked soul has no say over your body what-so-ever, or mind, it's just tagging along for the trip untill the possession is released. XD
That is plausible, but I believe that the idea of ownership lies in the fact that you need things to survive or to keep you alive and to live in dignity and civilization. This stuff that you need for life is a right in intself. The perversion of this would be slavery etc. The path to that perversion is violence and dominance.
exactly correct
it's just the good old "this is mine, now gtfo or get the pointy end of the stick", except today we use courts and the superior force of the state instead of the stick
This definition seems patchy.
What of things a person "has" but has not explicitly claimed?
What of things gained through bluff and threat, handed over willingly or from fear?
What of things made unowned through the killing of the owner, which remain unclaimed?
not patchy at all, it's literally the exactly correct definition
none of your questions affect that, it just boils down to whether or not the state would enforce your claim to those objects
That is plausible, but I believe that the idea of ownership lies in the fact that you need things to survive or to keep you alive and to live in dignity and civilization. This stuff that you need for life is a right in intself. The perversion of this would be slavery etc. The path to that perversion is violence and dominance.
the only "right" you have is what the state determines that you have
rights don't exist in nature, and only the most superior force can enforce rights
For a definition of ownership to be true, surely it must be negatable because if everything is universally owned, there seems to be no definition.
This distinction seems to imply that some things which could be owned are not, or that some people who might own things do not.
Thus to be fair, it seems my question carries the implicit premise that not everyone can own everything all the time. Perhaps obvious, but some might reject the premise of the question on those grounds and thus reject the concept of ownership.
I assume in good faith those who proffer an answer accept the premise of the question
If you have no position on ownership, you have no credibility using ownership as a premise. It's laughable to call someone else a thief if you cannot first justify yourself as an owner
And I say "has" specifically to avoid inserting a sneaky egoist premise, define "has" however you see fit
'finders keepers' logic
what communists mean when they want to abolish ownership is that ppl who fund companies don't actually deserve all the profits of those companies. the employees and contributors deserve more. but they have no power to get it. so we need the govt to take everything and redistribute it more fairly bc ppl suck.
if you didnt suck so much we wouldnt have to do this
I am not interested in how commies define it, my concern is that you seem to be unable to.
Something a person has may make them the owner, but that's a conclusion to an argument you've not laid out and again, a concept of ownership you have not defined
i did define it. 'finders keepers'. that is your natural law.
even govt-assigned ownership is just finders keepers with a bigger gun
what the fuck are you trying to ask here?
That's a bit more substancial, but how can anyone know what will be lost in the future?
If you were going to lose your gun tomorrow would it be yours today?
I suspect everyone will die at some point, does this not mean that everything will be at some point lost?
So you see I struggle to understand your definition, though I don't despute it
Having the right to do whatever you want with a thing (there might be exceptions (animal rights)) and the right to defend your rights in regard to that thing as well to enforce all above through the power of the state should you not be able to do it yourself.
Yes, ownership is rights based. Rights that are guaranteed by the state that upholds them if it needs to. This only is as mentioned here
None of this makes sense. There is a definition if there is a state. There also is a definition if there is no state, but it is different.
>universally owned
No clue what that is supposed to mean. Can only be meant in a stateless state.
possible if there is a state. In a stateless existence, without power monopoly (except selfdefense) it wouldn't be rightsbased, at least not rights based on statemade laws. Now you'd have to ask yourself if there are NATURAL laws.
There are exactly zero cases of successful defense of rights that are not violence. Just because the violence is implicit and via the state doesn't change what you're doing. If your rights are challenged, and you won, you either performed, threatened, or implied greater violence and the other party relented. Everytime.
Rights is short for "A right to violence"
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Just because the violence is implicit and via the state doesn't change what you're doing
Then you created an argument out of nothing as I said here
Having the right to do whatever you want with a thing (there might be exceptions (animal rights)) and the right to defend your rights in regard to that thing as well to enforce all above through the power of the state should you not be able to do it yourself.
you are allowed to use violence.
Here
>bears on utility
What do you mean by that?
Yes, ownership is rights based. Rights that are guaranteed by the state that upholds them if it needs to. This only is as mentioned here [...]
possible if there is a state. In a stateless existence, without power monopoly (except selfdefense) it wouldn't be rightsbased, at least not rights based on statemade laws. Now you'd have to ask yourself if there are NATURAL laws.
I said these rights are guaranteed. Which means the state will ENSURE that your rights are executed. Doesn't mean you have no rights to violence, although it depends on the situation if you can act or the state has to act for you.
Better still, so "ownership" is a civil concept that stems from the rights of a citizen? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but this seems like a republican definition I've come across before.
Not necessarily a citizen of the individual state since there are also noncitizens in states and they have ownership over their individual things.
My definition is statebased. Not saying that ownership itself is reliant on state or nonexistent without a state. But it changes with a state.
Without a state it is pure violence. You own what you can defend, what you have power over. If there is no state that upholds an order of ownership, you can't claim something is still yours, when it's outside your power. You'd have to conquer it back (in case of land).
I see, so the basis is the state rather than the citizen. That's probably a better definition of republican thought.
Nature gives possession, the state gives ownership.
Could you draft a definition on that basis which is unambiguous and negatable? I won't press you to define your terms
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Could you draft a definition on that basis which is unambiguous and negatable?
My definition was pretty unambigious. and it shouldn't be negatable?
And yes it is statebased as, as it is bound to the territory of the state. A state regularly also grants ownership of things that are on the territory of its state to noncitizens. But it also could change that.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Negatablility in this context goes back to the Greek language, in a legal or philosophical context it means that a "definition" must create two seperate states, in this case "owned" and "unowned". If you've only got one state you're definition is moot/meaningless.
Your definition of ownership must also define at least somthing as unowned.
It's a common problem you see every time on the political left, they define something so broadly that the definition appears universal. Their definition is technically unfalsifiable.
In their minds they think it's an argument that can't be refuted, when in fact they've just tried to use a definition as an argument.
"If everything is owned, this thing is owned".
Technically they are correct, but it's obviously not an argument as it's not falsifiable, they've created a meaningless term
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, I don't think it does need to.
Everything else you do not have
Having the right to do whatever you want with a thing (there might be exceptions (animal rights)) and the right to defend your rights in regard to that thing as well to enforce all above through the power of the state should you not be able to do it yourself.
over is not under your ownership. And that is what only matters. It defines your relation to the thing, as well as to the state and to a third person who is implicitly defined as a nonowner, since you as the owner are allowed to defend your ownership/the thing you own.
>if everything is owned, this thing is owned
This is true, but it doesn't define ownership. I wouldn't know in which case they'd use this "argument".
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Negatablility in this context goes back to the Greek language, in a legal or philosophical context it means that a "definition" must create two seperate states, in this case "owned" and "unowned". If you've only got one state you're definition is moot/meaningless.
Your definition of ownership must also define at least somthing as unowned.
It's a common problem you see every time on the political left, they define something so broadly that the definition appears universal. Their definition is technically unfalsifiable.
In their minds they think it's an argument that can't be refuted, when in fact they've just tried to use a definition as an argument.
"If everything is owned, this thing is owned".
Technically they are correct, but it's obviously not an argument as it's not falsifiable, they've created a meaningless term
So my definition says who you are and what rights you have towards the thing as an owner. It defines what rights you have towards a third person that can't be owner at the same time. And it defines what rights you have towards the state in regards to the thing you own against the state as well as against a third.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I wouldn't know in which case they'd use this "argument".
Happy is the Deutschanon who has never encountered such people.
So to surmise;
Ownership is a relation between a person and a thing, given by the state for the utilising of that thing?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Hard to say if to use "given" or "guaranteed" This is exactly the critical point. Is it given or guaranteed. What if the state does not exist. Are you owner or simply possessor as possession would be the only thing over a thing that actually would exist.
I would say "assigned to you", in regards to the right. Wouldn't fit with "relation" as in your definition here
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That doesn't seem such a big issue to me, the state simply limits the applicability of the definition.
If the principles applied where there was no state (eg. The moon) the thing would be unowned, but a very similar definition would apply to these things based on whatever authority suplanted the state in that context.
You wouldn't own the moon, you would "colonise" it, because in the absence of other "users" of the moon your colony would take the place of a state, and pieces of the moon wouldn't be "owned" by individual colonists they would be "settled".
That's exactly how ownership of unclaimed lands on earth worked
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Then comes the question.. Is the state the owner of the land? Or simply the possessor?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think that falls back to the divisibility of abstract entities. If a cop is the representative of the state, technically the individual cop owns a thing which is seized.
Some would argue a cop merely administrates seized assets for example, but I suspect the agent of a collective qualifies as the owner
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>
No, if he seizes it he does so for the state as the owner. He is simply possessing it at that moment. You can possess for others if you subordinate yourself which the cop does.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm not sure in what way the cop would actually be subordinate in that context, because it wouldn't seem to invalidate their ownership of the seized thing.
A subordinate can still own a thing, simply proving someone is a subordinate of a collective doesn't seem to give the collective agency
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If the cop was the owner the cop would be able to pursue his right on the owned thing before court, which he can't. He can defend it in reality against any attacker, as he has possession and the owner (state) would allow it. But owner would still be the state.
Yes a subordinate can still own things, his things. But not something he seizes for the state?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I see, so you are saying the subordinate doesn't have the rights given by state. So only the head of state could seize things in this way by changing the law.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Universal law and rights? What do you need a state for when you can argue on the grounds of universality? These people have been mind raped for gernerations, yet they feel that they are part of a dominant rule
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well there's already been one argument that ownership stems from natural law not civil law.
Most of the americans argue possession is by dint of violence which seems to stem from neutral law.
Republicanism isn't nearly as widespread as you may think, the west has fallen, the americans reject the founding fathers and have regressed to the law of tooth and claw
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
1) Isms are per definition ideology and by definition they are a intellectual blueprint or plan that helps few and has the vast majority pay for the few. Isms won't help.
2) USA has always been an social experiment. You could argue that has never been anything but the East India Company. What I give you is that there are enough US citizens that are very pragmatic and won't allow the state interfere with their business. In that sense, they are willing to defend their property with a gun in their hand. I sympathize with that.
3) I do not agree that ownership is defined by the ability to project power or violence on anybody who dares to questions that ownership.
4) I still believe that ownership is a natural right. However, I give you that it is idealistic and no good in the face of criminals and ideological organizations that tax you or worse.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I still believe that ownership is a natural right.
Right, but that addresses ownership's legality, not its definition.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't get that. Isn't it plausible that you have a right of ownership for the things you need as a human being? I find that definitely understandable and convincing. I understand that this idealistic and no good as long as you do not have the power to defend this right. But that is secondary. The question was, define ownership or somthing, so the above is your definition
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's a moral digression I would like to persue in another thread. Please don't detail by trying to talk to the leaf, nobody could be that stupid.
>[...] (You)
Sorry, that was elliptical, I have omitted a lot.
1) You have a right to live and to develop in dignity
2) Therefore, since you orignially only have your bare life and body, you need stuff to survive and to develop in a civilized manner.
3) This bare minimum of things that you need to live should be owned. Either by inheritance, by earning them or by grant
4) This is why ownership is a right - you need it as a human being and you can have it in various ways.
5) If you argue that some welfare "state" will care for you, you will face state employees that have no idea of your right. They will treat your right as a privilege that can be revoked when they deem it right. Same applies to digital currency or central bank money, they can make for you and withdraw it from you just as they please
I don't get it. I understand your argument that possession is a natural right, as everything or the relevent parts must have first become owned at some point.
I guess the jump I don't get is between that which was naturally possessed, and the chronological point that possession becomes lawful rather than simply presceding law
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I am not sure what you mean, either. I suppose that we have different perspectives. I am afraid that it is axiomatic to you that people own things per se, that there is nothing that has not been claimed. I, on the other hand, live in a world where people are born and needy. They have a right to survive and to develop. So they basicall own what they need. I agree that this does not make them good people. Actually, most behave like rubbish, but you can't deny them the right to live a civlized life and to prosper. That can't happen in world where people claim everything and then see how they can defend that against the others that as well want to claim it
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The state is just a collective of people whose asses stink just as bad as yours or mine.
The real question is , do you have the might, to execute your right, over theirs. That is the question.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ownership is a right assigned to you by the state, that defines the relation between a person and a thing in regards to the state or a third.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>assigned to you by the state
Thank you, Karl Marx.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
assigned as "order". You are the owner in this ownership order that exists and the state wants to uphold. Not that the state is giving you a particular thing.
i did define it. 'finders keepers'. that is your natural law.
even govt-assigned ownership is just finders keepers with a bigger gun
what the fuck are you trying to ask here?
Surely you recognize that "finders keepers" is a clique, which is used specifically to avoid giving a logical argument.
If I find a wallet on a dead man's body, do I own it?
It seems to me that you're arguing force is the basis of ownership, this concept I understand readily but I cannot work out how to apply machpolitik to things where
A. A single owner can't be found, for example can a corporate entity "own" somthing or would that simply be the property of the CEO or a peripheral figure like a general of the army.
B. Things which seem intangible, like a patent and which it would seem cannot be seized
C. Things which nobody seems to obviously possess, if a farmer goes to the shop what makes the farm his art that point? How does "finders keepers" relate to squatting, what the law calls "theft by finding" and reparation( where the victim demands compensation and will not take back the thing which was stolen)
But surely "can" implies time limitation, so give yourself more credit here. It would seem that somthing that "can" be taken at some point in time would remain yours at any other point.
Would this not mean anything you possessed would be somthing you owned?
Also posing stupid philosophical questions like this is for homosexuals. Simple cultural concepts like this are well established and only need explaining to low IQ naggers.
I find it amusing you claim these things are well understood, but decline the opportunity to define them.
If you can't define it, methinks you don't understand it
Then it would seem possession and ownership are synonymous.
This would mean there would be no distinction between an owner and a thief, both possessing the thing in question. It would also seem to leave most things unowned, those things not being possessed, specifically land, animals and plants
I think the principle difference between a thief and a thing's rightful owner would be legitimacy of the claim over the thing in question.
I think if something was gained through immoral, like thievery, means, then their claim to that thing would be illegitimate.
This would explain why fraudsters may be forced to relinquish their ill-gotten gains. Even if a legitimate transaction took place, the pretenses of that transaction were immoral and therefore not actually legitimate.
A popular distinction, but it draws you back to my point.
If ownership is legitimate possession, how can we define legitimate in that context WITHOUT possession.
You've gota conditional now. possession (implying non possesion) and legitimacy (implying illegitimate possession)
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well let's go back to what I said before.
Legitimacy implies at least two important things >Thing is or was gained through moral means >Rights over the thing are recognized to the degree appropriate to that thing
There also seems to be something intuitive about legitimacy and I think it's a mainly moral intuition.
We all know the throne belongs to Hamlet and not his traitorous uncle. Why?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well now I'm confused.
Is the basis of ownership moral, social, legal or phisical?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Does it have to be just one of them?
Aspects of all of those things are realized in ownership. And none of those are mutually exclusive.
I'd say it's principally a moral one. Legal structures, communities, and governing bodies all have a moral intuition which allow them to recognize legitimacy.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
If those things are not mutually exclusive, the definition is not falsifiable and thus meaningless.
Two people would claim to own the same thing on different basies, and thus a decision couldn't be reached on either basis
>Then it would seem possession and ownership are synonymous.
No, these things are culturally well defined you're just being a dumb nagger.
Can you keep a rental though you possess it? No they gonna take it or toss you in prison if you don't pay.
Can they prove something is stolen? No? Then its yours now. >land, animals and plants
What is public property. Nigga you have the downs.
Again you claim these things are widely known, but cannot demonstrate personal knowledge. Maybe you should read the sticky.
You haven't defined ownership, or even laid out any terms (bar "property" which you seem to use as a term)
If I stole your car, I don't think you could convince anyone that the car was every yours
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nigga you have the downs. Once again you need to learn how to read. >I have and can keep.
^laid out definition every post. >Can they prove something is stolen?
If a nig takes your bike, until you take it back or can prove to police that particular bike is yours, it is now his bike.
Can you keep a stolen car? Probably not.
Can they prove its stolen? Yes.
Then it would seem possession and ownership are synonymous.
This would mean there would be no distinction between an owner and a thief, both possessing the thing in question. It would also seem to leave most things unowned, those things not being possessed, specifically land, animals and plants
to steal something is to take someone else's possession without their consent, ownership has nothing to do with it. if I pick up a stick in the woods, and someone comes and takes it from me, that is theft without legal ownership. likewise one can steal that which was stolen.
ownership is a claim; it can only be disputed by power, like any claim.
>non transferable
Yes, this would be an intrinsic property of the entity itself. Ownership is obviously (I hope) not an instrinsic property, but a contingent one. >nonexclusive
Yes, ownership is, ipso facto, a property that implies exclusion. >not possessible
Requires clarification. If you mean that one cannot own a thing that can't be directly, physically held or occupied, then I'm not sure I agree, but I'd want to talk/think it out to be sure. >not utilizable
I used the logical operator "or". Not "and". I don't agree that utilization is a necessary condition of ownership, rather that utilization is among the capacities exclusively conferred by ownership.
perhaps this is a larger example of ordo ab chao
natural law is chaos. if you dont defend your kill, a scavenger will steal it.
so man created order. we tamed chaos with deeds, contracts, and police forces.
perhaps optimists of the world can take us a step further and tame more inequalities of the natural world
I think the most important thing is that you possess certain rights over a thing you own and these are mutually recognized. The rights differ from thing to thing of course.
This all depends on what the thing actually is.
Certain things you own will be recognized merely on your word, other things of a more serious nature may demand documentation and/or recognition by a governing body.
For instance, the title to a piece of property.
There are also different types of ownership depending on the relationship to the thing. A ship captain can be said to own the ship he commands in one respect, but also the line or navy to which it belongs can also be said to own it. The ownership is shared in a unique manner.
A father can be said to own his wife, and the parents can be said to own their children. This relationship differs from the way a master may own slaves.
If I could sum up a definition, I think it would be, "A special relationship between two beings, the superior of which be called "owner," in which the owner possesses certain rights over the second, that being dependent on the nature or circumstances of either being, which are mutually recognized by their community."
I see, so the basis is the state rather than the citizen. That's probably a better definition of republican thought.
Nature gives possession, the state gives ownership.
Could you draft a definition on that basis which is unambiguous and negatable? I won't press you to define your terms
there is no difference. the state is just a bigger gun. the state can also become instable, bring your proprety 'rights' with it
'squatter rights' are a good example. those laws dont just transfer unused property (their intent), they prevent the rightful owner from using violence to evict the squatter. that's the state using their big gun the transfer property in a socialist way.
squatter laws were once popular in history bc large blocks of city property were abandoned during economic crashes. they are unpopular during times of economic stability
That's a fair explanation, if the law is a threat by the state then it could be said the state owns everything by dint of force.
But if that's the case I would question the divisibility of that force.
Just like a corporate, the state is an abstract entity. If a cop seizes your car, does that car belong to the cop personally or the state the cop represents?
Could the cop not act against the state, and on that basis a reflective argument be made that on the basis you can fight the law and fight the state, things remain owned by the possessor?
i guess its just a matter of definition. posession is a bit more reliable than abstract ownership. an example is if your car gets towed: the towing company doesnt own your car (yet), but good luck repossessing it without paying
This is why the concept of ownership is so difficult, it's proximity to "possession".
Can a person possess somthing they don't own and vice versa? It's very hard to explain why without threatening the definition of ownership to started with.
Ah now here's an interesting thing, the first person who's definition of rights falls within a social framework.
Everyone else's definitions seem based on force or soverign law
I don't necessarily disagree with the principles of violence many anons seem to believe.
Two people can both have legitimate claims to a thing, neither one gained that thing immorally. Who does it belong to? In the past, violence was often the tool that answered the question. >May I with right and conscience make this claim?
But it would seem that you are arguing ownership is the social recognition of the result of a conflict, possession being akin to winning, ownership being akin to others recognising that you have won
An ideal of worldy possessions and our rights to them. Coase therom is a good read if you are interested. I don't believe in it because it begs the question of whom decides, aka the state, thus imposing on us that the state dictates rights to ownership, which implies they own everything. But that's kinda where this is all going anyways it feels. The government has a monopoly on violence so truly who owns anything
I guess some of the distaste with the government deciding, which seems inevitable as a stateless state is just some fantasy, is that my government would not be just. It sucks to know that what I own could not be mine if they decide they don't like me.
No of this implies I won't fight. I just don't trust the gov to do the right thing
There are a few seperate threads here im struggling to seperate >ownership synonymous with possession, dependent on violence >ownership as a civil construct, the state being violence manifest >ownership being moral >ownership being a social recognition of one of the above being primary possession
If a fascist turns up and argues moral possession less state recognition we would seem to have all four sections of the compass bITT
But that's total COPE because those three are in direct conflict. "Bundle" here is a euphemism for a false definition.
This is in fact the first definition in the thread I would reject, the others being merely vague definitions or falacious arguments.
You win the strange distinction of giving the first false definition.
Try to express that as a logical argument and you will see how hopeless it actually is in terms of sneaky premises
>those three are in direct conflict
This is the only part of your post that addresses the definition.
They're "in direct conflict" only because the owner can't do all three at once. But so what? You don't nee to practice all your rights at once to have them. >Try to express that as a logical argument and >t. Condescending asshole.
Ah, but there's the issue.
Because the three terms are in conflict it creates a situation where if any one of the three is distributed it creates a false definition.
And that's what's happening right now in America, you have many situations where three different parties have distributed rights over the same thing (typically land) and then all three use the same definition to prove the land is theirs. All three are correct not by degree but to the exclusion of one another, because it's a false definition.
Thats a tortology.
I'm saying that you've given a false definition, which is used principally in poor faith by those who don't accept it themselves.
A thing, with associated rights, yielding a combination of A, B, C. This doesn't work as a definition where
A. A. Is yielded universally. So for example the sun is of universal utility and that would ( and actually does) lead to collective entities like the WEF trying to claim they own the sun because they represent all the users of the sun.
B. Where someone steals one of the three features of ownership then makes the circular argument that it wasn't theft because they possess the thing (again, absolutely typical of American law). This usually happens when someone gains a indirect benefit of an asset, then tries to claim damages for losing that benefit. 80% of civil litigation takes this form and a bizarre volume relates to trees on private land
C. Where the state tries to seize private property, claiming their tax on the thing is a feature rather than a condition of ownership (see: ATF)
It's a false definition, and the only one ITT I'd actually reject on technical grounds
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>used principally in poor faith by those who don't accept it themselves.
Ad hominem >A. A. Is yielded universally.
You're saying the existence of The Commons proves that property doesn't exist. >WEF trying to claim they own the sun because they represent all the users of the sun.
You know they're logically wrong yet you use this as an example. >B. Where someone steals one of the three features of ownership
Poor implementation does not invalidate a definition. >C. Where the state tries to seize private property, claiming their tax on the thing is a feature rather than a condition of ownership
Same reply.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, I'm saying that your definition is false because
A. People will steal things by claiming that thing is actually part of the commons.aka. communism.
B. Collectives will deny being thieves, arguing they represent the victim aka. WEF, cultural Marxism
C. People who have stolen a benefit will then claim having the benefit means they can't steal the thing.
And its not that these are practical problems, if we accept your false definition none of these three people would actually be wrong.
It's not just a vague definition or falacious reasoning, it's a false definition.
You've swallowed a blue pill burger anon, your system wasn't designed by the good guys
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
These are all examples of false claims. Criminals can claim whatever they like. Doesn't make it true. >Murderer claims he didn't do it. >Welp, I guess there's no definition of murder.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's why I say, try to write the arguments in logical format.
These are not mere claims, if you accept a false definition it creates a cascade of arguments which are logically true but manifestly false.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the arguments
Definitions are not arguments. >false definition
Definitions are neither true nor false. They're definitions.
Claims, statements, etc can be true or false.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
By false I should say falacious. Your definition is technically falacious as distributing any of the last three terms creates a logical conflict.
Cmon now, penguins are birds. Read the sticky
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>By false I should say falacious.
Same error. >distributing any of the last three terms creates a logical conflict. >distributing
You are polluting my definition and then dismissing your polluted definition.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Your definition is false because it is made up of more than three parts unless the features of ownership are taken as a single part, but being three you cannot condense then into a single term for the same reason,
Adding more layers of violence solves this. Your heirs and the state generally use their implied (or explicit) violence to validate further claims of ownership.
Implied violence is a spook, you can't take the macht out of machtpolitik.
These are very good and accurate statements about ownership (except as they confuse ownership and possession),
But you didn't define it. You talked about it without defining it.
What does it mean to own, say, a shirt?
It's a definition, followed by the definition of its (and their) logical terms. The first sentence is the definition.
Owning a shirt is practically possessing it, and being granted the civic rights to cousin it within the relevent juresdiction.
You don't need to put inverted commas around shekleism, thats a definition that's mutually accepted.
I stated from the outset that giving a definition implies acceptance of the concept, which btfo the israelite who might otherwise have dumped moot definitions into the thread instead of rejecting the premise that things can be owned
You don't understand, what I'm saying is that by asking for a definition of ownership I'm
A. Not accepting poor faith definitions from israelite who don't accept the concept
B. Not trying to prove the concept is true by claiming a definition is possible, I'm not "begging the question"
It's a very common feature of Socratic dialogue to state at the outset that you are arguing in good faith and will not accept arguments made in poor faith; which seperates this from rhetorical debate where poor faith arguments abound
>A. Not accepting poor faith definitions
You need to do more than not accept them. You need to show their faults. >B. Not trying to prove the concept is true by claiming a definition is possible,
This expresses what you're NOT doing. OK...
It's a feature of socratic dialogue that poor faith speakers aren't acknowledged at all.
You will see I've engaged with anons who's arguments are vague or falacious, but nobody who rejected the premise of the question.
It's basically rule number one of Socratic dialogue, never answer a question when you don't accept the premise; never consider an answer of someone who does not accept the premise.
Thus while the premise is obvious I feel the need to state that explicitly at the very start
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>while the premise is obvious
What is it?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I ask for a definition of ownership, the premise being that things can be owned. Fairly straightforward.
If you don't believe things can be owned, I won't acknowledge your definition of ownership for reasons that should also be obvious, you would be arguing in poor faith to try and define something you didn't believe in
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why don't you anwser to 440622612
Is that too hard to understand that you need things in order to survive and that you have a chance earn and right to own them and that they must not be taken away; that is a natural right
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'm not arguing against ownership, I'm saying that I won't engage with people who reject the concept.
Naturally, a persons should be able to possess what s/he needs to live. If even that is a privilege, it is slavery
I'm afraid I don't understand
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>
Naturally, a persons should be able to possess what s/he needs to live. If even that is a privilege, it is slavery
(You)
Sorry, that was elliptical, I have omitted a lot.
1) You have a right to live and to develop in dignity
2) Therefore, since you orignially only have your bare life and body, you need stuff to survive and to develop in a civilized manner.
3) This bare minimum of things that you need to live should be owned. Either by inheritance, by earning them or by grant
4) This is why ownership is a right - you need it as a human being and you can have it in various ways.
5) If you argue that some welfare "state" will care for you, you will face state employees that have no idea of your right. They will treat your right as a privilege that can be revoked when they deem it right. Same applies to digital currency or central bank money, they can make for you and withdraw it from you just as they please
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>They will treat your right as a privilege that can be revoked when they deem it right
you mean like your employer does?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That is the nature of a privilege. You can enjoy it, but the person that grants it can revoke it anytime even without explanation. Maybe like a license; in general, you are not entitled to fly a plane. Under certain circumstances, an exception is made but it can just as easily be revoked by the authority in power. Somewhere in the wild or in outer space, you can fly as much as you want if you know how and have the means for it; no privilege needed there.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
you sound like the type to let your fiance get fucked by the king before your wedding. 'if we dont he'll kill us'!
he cant kill us all you cuckold. organize and unionize before they take that away too
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There is no premise for your comment. I explained or defined what a privilege is. It can be granted and revoked by an autority. Deal with it. Also, enjoy your central banking money and your free health care and free media. It is all a hoax
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Life and liberty are bound to your body. Property is a thing outside of it. To be honest, you could argue you have also no right to these. It's all about violence and the ability to defend these things. It's just easier to defend life and freedom since you can move yourself easier than all your belongings.
So guess what, we have no righs to anything outside of a state. Great.
ITT OP argues that difficulty in implementation proves that definition is impossible.
It's like saying that some rockets blew up therefore physics is invalid.
No, I'm speaking philosophically.
You must be able to define ownership of you believe in ownership, otherwise your cultural views ammount to superstition.
You believe in ghosts, you believe in ownership, you can't prove either exist
Ownership is where an agent lawfully possesses a thing; where an agent is an entity that may phisically possess a thing, lawfully is a status granted by the eminent force bearing on the force of possesion, and a thing is that which may be possessed.
There is only one exclusion; being a thing which is temporarily unpossesable, where eminent force would bear but for the absence of an agent.
Now for a fairly exaustive negation:
1. A nonagent cannot own a thing, thus a dead person, an imaginary person, agency is a requisite of possession.
2. A thing cannot be illegally owned, that is a conflict of terms. A thing sold by a thief is not lawfully sold and thus isn't concurrently owned.
3. A collective cannot own things as its phisical agency is a feature of the collectives agents. Note this is a technical not a moral distinction. A cop is lawfully depriving someone of ownership of a seized thing, not seizing ownership of that thing
4. A thing is unowned if it cannot be possessed. All abstract assets are unowned rather than unownable. Not moot because it applies to the argument that "nothing can be possessed" is negatable.
2.1 eminent force is the greater force which is not manifest.
2.2 bearing is by dint of being greater that the manifested force
2.3 the force of possession is not a new term, it is possession+bearing
3. (The big exception which really only relates to asteroids, the center of the earth, subatomic assets)
There is actually no new terms
These are very good and accurate statements about ownership (except as they confuse ownership and possession),
But you didn't define it. You talked about it without defining it.
What does it mean to own, say, a shirt?
It means that you need it to function in this world. It belongs to you. You have acquired or made it your own either by earning it, inheriting it or by grant. Basically, you need the insight that you own your dear life and for your life to continue and prosper, you need AND own stuff from the other world, other than your mere self. You have a right in this world that is more important than random claims that people make
It means that you need it to function in this world. It belongs to you. You have acquired or made it your own either by earning it, inheriting it or by grant. Basically, you need the insight that you own your dear life and for your life to continue and prosper, you need AND own stuff from the outer world, other than your mere self. You have a right in this world that is more important than random claims that people make
I agree with what you are saying, but you're justifying ownership (correctly, IMHO) of essentials.
Owning a shirt means that you can wear it, discard it, sell it, give it away, use it as a rag, burn it...
Use, transfer, abandon, or destroy.
That is the question it there is something like a legal person opposed to a natural person. The legal person is the foundation of Western prosperity because people could found a firm without having the risk of being personally responsible for their endeavors as entrepreneurs, they were only responsible for a defined sum or risk capital. That is ok. However, it can also be abused as we can see in the banking system and also in corporations it has a dehumanzing effect
Ownership is the property instanced on what is mine by nature. What is mine by nature is what is given to me by Fate. What, by the power of my spirit, I dominate and is therefore my dominion.
Fate can give and take away whatever from you at any time, therefore those who are able to keep the dark at bay and the light on high own whatever they keep safe by the power of their own being. This is called Regality and is the true meaning of Regere, or ruling.
Ever wonder why a holy relic is said to "belong" only to the one who is "worthy"? You can only have what you are worthy of having.
That's not a workable definition because there's an internal conflict between
1. Natural possession
2. Fate
3. Struggle
Just like the americans three kids are all going to snatch at the same flute speaking the exact same words
In what way are they in conflict? There is no struggle against fate. >flute problem
If I decide by further inquiry that they don't deserve it, because they're all too petty and greedy, I wouldn't give the flute to any of the kids.
Interesting how the kids form a triad. What did the creator mean by that?
Anyway thought experments of that sort are useless. You always have to assume that people in them have no freewill, like the trolley problem. >I pull the lever and free the one person as it's easier to free one person that 5. >You can't save them. >Why not? Nowhere in the formulation of the problem is said I can't move or have a knife in my back pocket. >You just can't. >Interesting how the only way you'll get me to act evil is to remove all of my agency. The blood of the poeple killed by the trolley is not in my hands! But in the hands of the evil god who's forcing this unlucid dream on me!
It's a semantic ploy, a spell to limit your range of options like the overton window.
Dominate your life while undergoing capital punishment. Your train of thought still is nice, though
If I can't fend of such a destiny then I'm not worthy of life and was fated to die.
>able to keep the dark at bay and the light on high
Isn't that a bit occult? That is not enlightened reasoning, it is rather religious
>Isn't that a bit occult?
It's traditional. >religion
for shudras
Everything is religion, politics, money, man made laws, ideologies at it's fundamentals. All begin and end with idolizing and ultimately worship, be it through willing collaboration or forced.
That doesn't seem such a big issue to me, the state simply limits the applicability of the definition.
If the principles applied where there was no state (eg. The moon) the thing would be unowned, but a very similar definition would apply to these things based on whatever authority suplanted the state in that context.
You wouldn't own the moon, you would "colonise" it, because in the absence of other "users" of the moon your colony would take the place of a state, and pieces of the moon wouldn't be "owned" by individual colonists they would be "settled".
That's exactly how ownership of unclaimed lands on earth worked
Then comes the question.. Is the state the owner of the land? Or simply the possessor?
Well, ownership as contingent property is pretty fluid in definition. One could say that the first owner of any land would've been the first person or group who could occupy it to the exclusion of others. The individuals that this would entail are mostly lost to history, and are likely to be largely prelingual.
But now states exist, and enforce ownership of nearly all land by force of law. We can stroke each other about what that "really" means, but if we end up with a definition of ownership that doesn't permit things like absentee landlords or corporate leases or eminent domain or intellectual property etc then we're wrong, and talking about some other metaphysical concept than ownership.
>that notion makes the world the hellhole it is today
This is exactly what I mean. You find the fact of the matter distasteful. I don't disagree. But our aesthetic preferences about it don't change how ownership works as a matter of fact. In reality people can own dirt they've never stepped on, legal entities can own songs written by people that died before any of their employees had been born, cosmetic companies can buy the foreskins of babies who couldn't consent to elective medical procedures from hospitals with no legal requirement to seek permission for the transaction from parents. That is the reality of ownership, in law and in fact. No amount of sophistry is going to change it. If you distill ownership down to some abstract essentials that don't allow for these things then you've ended up with an incorrect definition of ownership, one that is contradicted by reality.
the original owner was whoever the state recognizes to have been the original owner
equivalent to how the first owner of a patch of land was the first to start stabbing people with a stick for trespassing, or even way back to when we were primates defending our territories with tooth and claw
that's not how ownership works
ownership is literally just whatever the superior force determines it is
the only thing that has changed is that we no longer use tooth and claw or a pointy stick, but the superior force of the state, ultimately backed up by its military in extreme cases
if the state says "fuck you, my land now", then it's their land, until some other superior force comes along and claims ownership of the land
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I mean 'official' ownership that is somewhere on a piece of paper that says 'X owns this land'. Who was the first and when?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
again, that's not how ownership works
ownership is just what the most superior force determines
the "first" owner is whoever the state recognizes to have been the first owner, regardless of how that was determined
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The first that created a state and had pen and paper.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
So the state basically grabbed all the land when it was created and then gave it to some and sold it to others?
It's like when, I own your mother's ass, and even though it's hers in the end, and goes back to her ownership after I'm done, It's mine as long as my hands are gripping onto it.
Legal ownership is the right to call punitive organs of society (police) against people who interact with an object you own in a manner that you do not approve of.
For me, it's abducted, slowly drained of their blood and life force, and look into my eyes as the last spark of his life fades away into the void. Because I'm passionate.
A thing which is recognized by social convention as belonging to an individual or group. In the absence of social convention that which an individual or group is capable of defending through force.
A
NONS
ownership is literally defined by maxim as:
"The right of primary control and enjoyment of the benefit."
Period. That is it. Settled upon through centuries of israeli debate.
That's the definition, and there is no dissembling you can apply to confuse it
>hurr what's a right?
Concensus that you may act without reproach. Don't even try to divorce "ownership" from "a right" with sophistry, because its idempotent.
Ownership IS a form of "right."
Is. Equals. Defined as. >hurr what's primary
Penultimate. Not exceeded by another. >hurr whats control
555 Come on now. >hurr whats enjoyment of the benefit
A thing's value is considered in law as the benefits a person can recieve from it, wether that be its utility or the profit off letting or licensing it.
>HURRRR BBBUT ITS ALL JUST SO.. SO.. SUBJECTIVE TO THENWHIMS OFNTHE RULERS AND SOCIETY!1!!
Yep. Exactly. Welcome to how things are. Lawfags are laughing at your right now because: "Yes."
>but what if i take it from you?2???
Thats not ownership. Go to bed.
>idempotent
don't use words you don't understand, it's just embarrassing
you didn't even manage to use it in anything remotely close to the right way >Penultimate. Not exceeded by another.
lmao
seriously, learn what words mean before you use them, retard
the word "penultimate" does not mean "super duper ultimate", it means "second to last", like "second" is to "first"
That's one thing I find so entertaining and comical about 4chins and it's users. Yous are so pretentious and fake, wearing your little masks and camouflages, pretending yous are enlightened, knowledgeful, love to use your little complicated words and pretend yous are not simpletons.
I can see right through yous, each and every one of yous here.
The greater violence
This
> I have *thing*
> I'll kill you if you try to take it or die defending it
ownership = a person, organization, or force has laid claim to a thing, and has the potential to enforce this exclusive claim through violence
This definition seems patchy.
What of things a person "has" but has not explicitly claimed?
What of things gained through bluff and threat, handed over willingly or from fear?
What of things made unowned through the killing of the owner, which remain unclaimed?
^>this guy knows whats up
>What of things a person "has" but has not explicitly claimed?
egoist fag
>What of things gained through bluff and threat, handed over willingly or from fear?
you are gay
>What of things made unowned through the killing of the owner, which remain unclaimed?
try thinking for yourself instead of femininely asking your leading questions, homosexual
If you have no position on ownership, you have no credibility using ownership as a premise. It's laughable to call someone else a thief if you cannot first justify yourself as an owner
And I say "has" specifically to avoid inserting a sneaky egoist premise, define "has" however you see fit
In German law, you discriminate between ownership and possession. You can have rightful and not rightful possession of a thing. This distinction should help you
Yes, but ironically possession is a physical thing and it gets mingled with rights. It's that weird being, that grants you right, though being not a real right but a thing of reality (physical possession). So unrightful possession is a thing that can only exist because there is ownership, which exists because of the state.
I mean, what would Unrightful Possession be in a world without rights?
You do not need a state for ownership, it is a natural right 440622612
It is nice idea that you have a state to defend your right but as we have experienced, it is not working. I am living in a Stasi situation right now. Banks, financial system, tax system, welfare state, free education are all the same instrument of dominance against the individual. I really mean it
You need a state for ownership in the sense we mean it. Otherwise you are not really an OWNER, but merely a possessor. I understand your reasoning with natural rights, but how can you say you own something if you can't claim it back with the help of the state. Without a state there isn't real ownership in the modern sense.
You can say you own the thing somebody took from you, but can you get it back? In a world with a state you can through the state, as you own the right.
But in a world without a state you simply lost possession.
Not true, you have a right to develop as a human being in dignity. For that, you need ownership for cultural attributes and civilization. The state could take care of that, but as we experience, it does not. It takes away everything that you have and could have made.
Man, you are talking about way too metaphorical stuff. We are talking about ownership over things.
It is not over things. They are part of yourself because you can't live and prosper without them
You can defend your ownership e.g. by locking your bicycle in a space that is not accessible by thieves. You must defend your ownership against the state by minizing its influence. Please do not fall for the state's fake health, education and security system. Eg my car was damaged in an accident. I have proven that the other driver was 100 % at fault. Yet, I neither get a free rental car from the insurance, nor do the police even hand out their protocol of the accident. They just wait what happens next and then make a trade off. There is rule of law, it is all about power.
It comes from tacitus, all western law has this distinction.
My point was more the difficulty in defining what a person does or doesn't possess
Naturally, a persons should be able to possess what s/he needs to live. If even that is a privilege, it is slavery
Adding more layers of violence solves this. Your heirs and the state generally use their implied (or explicit) violence to validate further claims of ownership.
it's not that complicated. You own something if you are in control of it. If it's from stealing, earning, creating whatever that doesn't matter. What does matter at that point is a notion of fairness, which only comes into play when people conspire to protect their claims. "ownership" can then be seen through the lens of community or law. People can dispute claims of ownership verbally but that is only an appeal. People can revoke legal ownership but that is only a demand. This is all the same point of fact that ownership is contingent on your ability to maintain control of whatever it is, if need be.
A complete definition is a wall against all thieves, israelite and anarchists.
No, retard. That is possession
They're not conceptually different unless ownership is distinct by some contract and at that point why ask the question. It would just be defined by the contract. It's obvious that OP was talking about something more fundamental then semantics. Besides, possessing something and having control over it are certainly different.
Ownership is relative to possession.
Like, when a demon possess your body and mind, your little cucked soul has no say over your body what-so-ever, or mind, it's just tagging along for the trip untill the possession is released. XD
OK, you did not even read the tread or what I was referring to. For non-readers: Natural Law; you own what you need to survive and to live in dignity
I'll let the Beaver elaborate
That is plausible, but I believe that the idea of ownership lies in the fact that you need things to survive or to keep you alive and to live in dignity and civilization. This stuff that you need for life is a right in intself. The perversion of this would be slavery etc. The path to that perversion is violence and dominance.
That means osho was perfectly justified in his position when he armed his followers to defend his property.
exactly correct
it's just the good old "this is mine, now gtfo or get the pointy end of the stick", except today we use courts and the superior force of the state instead of the stick
not patchy at all, it's literally the exactly correct definition
none of your questions affect that, it just boils down to whether or not the state would enforce your claim to those objects
the only "right" you have is what the state determines that you have
rights don't exist in nature, and only the most superior force can enforce rights
Bend over
For a definition of ownership to be true, surely it must be negatable because if everything is universally owned, there seems to be no definition.
This distinction seems to imply that some things which could be owned are not, or that some people who might own things do not.
Thus to be fair, it seems my question carries the implicit premise that not everyone can own everything all the time. Perhaps obvious, but some might reject the premise of the question on those grounds and thus reject the concept of ownership.
I assume in good faith those who proffer an answer accept the premise of the question
None of this makes sense. There is a definition if there is a state. There also is a definition if there is no state, but it is different.
>universally owned
No clue what that is supposed to mean. Can only be meant in a stateless state.
'finders keepers' logic
what communists mean when they want to abolish ownership is that ppl who fund companies don't actually deserve all the profits of those companies. the employees and contributors deserve more. but they have no power to get it. so we need the govt to take everything and redistribute it more fairly bc ppl suck.
if you didnt suck so much we wouldnt have to do this
I am not interested in how commies define it, my concern is that you seem to be unable to.
Something a person has may make them the owner, but that's a conclusion to an argument you've not laid out and again, a concept of ownership you have not defined
i did define it. 'finders keepers'. that is your natural law.
even govt-assigned ownership is just finders keepers with a bigger gun
what the fuck are you trying to ask here?
I feel like "my nagger" works
I don't want or need very much. I just want to support my family, and eventually die in my bed. why won't you fucking commies leave me alone?
If you fail to define ownership, claiming to be an owner has no meaning, and accusing others of theft is laughable. The burden is on you in this
If I fail to keep and maintain it, it was never mine to begin with. How's that gun ban going, Bruce?
That's a bit more substancial, but how can anyone know what will be lost in the future?
If you were going to lose your gun tomorrow would it be yours today?
I suspect everyone will die at some point, does this not mean that everything will be at some point lost?
So you see I struggle to understand your definition, though I don't despute it
>Define "ownership"
No. Kill yourself.
Having the right to do whatever you want with a thing (there might be exceptions (animal rights)) and the right to defend your rights in regard to that thing as well to enforce all above through the power of the state should you not be able to do it yourself.
First credible answer, I take it you believe ownership is rights based and bears on utility- am I correct?
>bears on utility
What do you mean by that?
Yes, ownership is rights based. Rights that are guaranteed by the state that upholds them if it needs to. This only is as mentioned here
possible if there is a state. In a stateless existence, without power monopoly (except selfdefense) it wouldn't be rightsbased, at least not rights based on statemade laws. Now you'd have to ask yourself if there are NATURAL laws.
Rights are upheld by violence, not by the state.
There are cases where you can't pursue your rights by violence, but have to take the route over the state unless you want to be a criminal yourself.
There are exactly zero cases of successful defense of rights that are not violence. Just because the violence is implicit and via the state doesn't change what you're doing. If your rights are challenged, and you won, you either performed, threatened, or implied greater violence and the other party relented. Everytime.
Rights is short for "A right to violence"
>Just because the violence is implicit and via the state doesn't change what you're doing
Then you created an argument out of nothing as I said here
you are allowed to use violence.
Here
I said these rights are guaranteed. Which means the state will ENSURE that your rights are executed. Doesn't mean you have no rights to violence, although it depends on the situation if you can act or the state has to act for you.
Better still, so "ownership" is a civil concept that stems from the rights of a citizen? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but this seems like a republican definition I've come across before.
Not necessarily a citizen of the individual state since there are also noncitizens in states and they have ownership over their individual things.
My definition is statebased. Not saying that ownership itself is reliant on state or nonexistent without a state. But it changes with a state.
Without a state it is pure violence. You own what you can defend, what you have power over. If there is no state that upholds an order of ownership, you can't claim something is still yours, when it's outside your power. You'd have to conquer it back (in case of land).
I see, so the basis is the state rather than the citizen. That's probably a better definition of republican thought.
Nature gives possession, the state gives ownership.
Could you draft a definition on that basis which is unambiguous and negatable? I won't press you to define your terms
>Could you draft a definition on that basis which is unambiguous and negatable?
My definition was pretty unambigious. and it shouldn't be negatable?
And yes it is statebased as, as it is bound to the territory of the state. A state regularly also grants ownership of things that are on the territory of its state to noncitizens. But it also could change that.
Negatablility in this context goes back to the Greek language, in a legal or philosophical context it means that a "definition" must create two seperate states, in this case "owned" and "unowned". If you've only got one state you're definition is moot/meaningless.
Your definition of ownership must also define at least somthing as unowned.
It's a common problem you see every time on the political left, they define something so broadly that the definition appears universal. Their definition is technically unfalsifiable.
In their minds they think it's an argument that can't be refuted, when in fact they've just tried to use a definition as an argument.
"If everything is owned, this thing is owned".
Technically they are correct, but it's obviously not an argument as it's not falsifiable, they've created a meaningless term
No, I don't think it does need to.
Everything else you do not have
over is not under your ownership. And that is what only matters. It defines your relation to the thing, as well as to the state and to a third person who is implicitly defined as a nonowner, since you as the owner are allowed to defend your ownership/the thing you own.
>if everything is owned, this thing is owned
This is true, but it doesn't define ownership. I wouldn't know in which case they'd use this "argument".
So my definition says who you are and what rights you have towards the thing as an owner. It defines what rights you have towards a third person that can't be owner at the same time. And it defines what rights you have towards the state in regards to the thing you own against the state as well as against a third.
>I wouldn't know in which case they'd use this "argument".
Happy is the Deutschanon who has never encountered such people.
So to surmise;
Ownership is a relation between a person and a thing, given by the state for the utilising of that thing?
Hard to say if to use "given" or "guaranteed" This is exactly the critical point. Is it given or guaranteed. What if the state does not exist. Are you owner or simply possessor as possession would be the only thing over a thing that actually would exist.
I would say "assigned to you", in regards to the right. Wouldn't fit with "relation" as in your definition here
That doesn't seem such a big issue to me, the state simply limits the applicability of the definition.
If the principles applied where there was no state (eg. The moon) the thing would be unowned, but a very similar definition would apply to these things based on whatever authority suplanted the state in that context.
You wouldn't own the moon, you would "colonise" it, because in the absence of other "users" of the moon your colony would take the place of a state, and pieces of the moon wouldn't be "owned" by individual colonists they would be "settled".
That's exactly how ownership of unclaimed lands on earth worked
Then comes the question.. Is the state the owner of the land? Or simply the possessor?
I think that falls back to the divisibility of abstract entities. If a cop is the representative of the state, technically the individual cop owns a thing which is seized.
Some would argue a cop merely administrates seized assets for example, but I suspect the agent of a collective qualifies as the owner
>
No, if he seizes it he does so for the state as the owner. He is simply possessing it at that moment. You can possess for others if you subordinate yourself which the cop does.
I'm not sure in what way the cop would actually be subordinate in that context, because it wouldn't seem to invalidate their ownership of the seized thing.
A subordinate can still own a thing, simply proving someone is a subordinate of a collective doesn't seem to give the collective agency
If the cop was the owner the cop would be able to pursue his right on the owned thing before court, which he can't. He can defend it in reality against any attacker, as he has possession and the owner (state) would allow it. But owner would still be the state.
Yes a subordinate can still own things, his things. But not something he seizes for the state?
I see, so you are saying the subordinate doesn't have the rights given by state. So only the head of state could seize things in this way by changing the law.
Universal law and rights? What do you need a state for when you can argue on the grounds of universality? These people have been mind raped for gernerations, yet they feel that they are part of a dominant rule
Well there's already been one argument that ownership stems from natural law not civil law.
Most of the americans argue possession is by dint of violence which seems to stem from neutral law.
Republicanism isn't nearly as widespread as you may think, the west has fallen, the americans reject the founding fathers and have regressed to the law of tooth and claw
1) Isms are per definition ideology and by definition they are a intellectual blueprint or plan that helps few and has the vast majority pay for the few. Isms won't help.
2) USA has always been an social experiment. You could argue that has never been anything but the East India Company. What I give you is that there are enough US citizens that are very pragmatic and won't allow the state interfere with their business. In that sense, they are willing to defend their property with a gun in their hand. I sympathize with that.
3) I do not agree that ownership is defined by the ability to project power or violence on anybody who dares to questions that ownership.
4) I still believe that ownership is a natural right. However, I give you that it is idealistic and no good in the face of criminals and ideological organizations that tax you or worse.
>I still believe that ownership is a natural right.
Right, but that addresses ownership's legality, not its definition.
I don't get that. Isn't it plausible that you have a right of ownership for the things you need as a human being? I find that definitely understandable and convincing. I understand that this idealistic and no good as long as you do not have the power to defend this right. But that is secondary. The question was, define ownership or somthing, so the above is your definition
That's a moral digression I would like to persue in another thread. Please don't detail by trying to talk to the leaf, nobody could be that stupid.
I don't get it. I understand your argument that possession is a natural right, as everything or the relevent parts must have first become owned at some point.
I guess the jump I don't get is between that which was naturally possessed, and the chronological point that possession becomes lawful rather than simply presceding law
I am not sure what you mean, either. I suppose that we have different perspectives. I am afraid that it is axiomatic to you that people own things per se, that there is nothing that has not been claimed. I, on the other hand, live in a world where people are born and needy. They have a right to survive and to develop. So they basicall own what they need. I agree that this does not make them good people. Actually, most behave like rubbish, but you can't deny them the right to live a civlized life and to prosper. That can't happen in world where people claim everything and then see how they can defend that against the others that as well want to claim it
The state is just a collective of people whose asses stink just as bad as yours or mine.
The real question is , do you have the might, to execute your right, over theirs. That is the question.
Ownership is a right assigned to you by the state, that defines the relation between a person and a thing in regards to the state or a third.
>assigned to you by the state
Thank you, Karl Marx.
assigned as "order". You are the owner in this ownership order that exists and the state wants to uphold. Not that the state is giving you a particular thing.
>calling a statist a marxist
ISHYGDDT
Sorry for my harsh words in the beginning here
I guess you are trying to talk about ownership outside of menmade laws?
I am unharmed.
Surely you recognize that "finders keepers" is a clique, which is used specifically to avoid giving a logical argument.
If I find a wallet on a dead man's body, do I own it?
It seems to me that you're arguing force is the basis of ownership, this concept I understand readily but I cannot work out how to apply machpolitik to things where
A. A single owner can't be found, for example can a corporate entity "own" somthing or would that simply be the property of the CEO or a peripheral figure like a general of the army.
B. Things which seem intangible, like a patent and which it would seem cannot be seized
C. Things which nobody seems to obviously possess, if a farmer goes to the shop what makes the farm his art that point? How does "finders keepers" relate to squatting, what the law calls "theft by finding" and reparation( where the victim demands compensation and will not take back the thing which was stolen)
That which if you try to take away from me, I may have to blow your head off. Howzzat?
Anything I have control over that cant be taken. So basically, nothing.
But surely "can" implies time limitation, so give yourself more credit here. It would seem that somthing that "can" be taken at some point in time would remain yours at any other point.
Would this not mean anything you possessed would be somthing you owned?
Possession and the power to keep it.
Also posing stupid philosophical questions like this is for homosexuals. Simple cultural concepts like this are well established and only need explaining to low IQ naggers.
I find it amusing you claim these things are well understood, but decline the opportunity to define them.
If you can't define it, methinks you don't understand it
Looks like you can't read.
Look back at the first sentence.
I have it and I can keep it. Simple as.
Go read Kant and stop being a homosexual.
Then it would seem possession and ownership are synonymous.
This would mean there would be no distinction between an owner and a thief, both possessing the thing in question. It would also seem to leave most things unowned, those things not being possessed, specifically land, animals and plants
I think the principle difference between a thief and a thing's rightful owner would be legitimacy of the claim over the thing in question.
I think if something was gained through immoral, like thievery, means, then their claim to that thing would be illegitimate.
This would explain why fraudsters may be forced to relinquish their ill-gotten gains. Even if a legitimate transaction took place, the pretenses of that transaction were immoral and therefore not actually legitimate.
A popular distinction, but it draws you back to my point.
If ownership is legitimate possession, how can we define legitimate in that context WITHOUT possession.
You've gota conditional now. possession (implying non possesion) and legitimacy (implying illegitimate possession)
Well let's go back to what I said before.
Legitimacy implies at least two important things
>Thing is or was gained through moral means
>Rights over the thing are recognized to the degree appropriate to that thing
There also seems to be something intuitive about legitimacy and I think it's a mainly moral intuition.
We all know the throne belongs to Hamlet and not his traitorous uncle. Why?
Well now I'm confused.
Is the basis of ownership moral, social, legal or phisical?
Does it have to be just one of them?
Aspects of all of those things are realized in ownership. And none of those are mutually exclusive.
I'd say it's principally a moral one. Legal structures, communities, and governing bodies all have a moral intuition which allow them to recognize legitimacy.
If those things are not mutually exclusive, the definition is not falsifiable and thus meaningless.
Two people would claim to own the same thing on different basies, and thus a decision couldn't be reached on either basis
>Then it would seem possession and ownership are synonymous.
No, these things are culturally well defined you're just being a dumb nagger.
Can you keep a rental though you possess it? No they gonna take it or toss you in prison if you don't pay.
Can they prove something is stolen? No? Then its yours now.
>land, animals and plants
What is public property. Nigga you have the downs.
Once again, learn to read.
>can keep it.
Is this your sophomore philosophy class homework?
Again you claim these things are widely known, but cannot demonstrate personal knowledge. Maybe you should read the sticky.
You haven't defined ownership, or even laid out any terms (bar "property" which you seem to use as a term)
If I stole your car, I don't think you could convince anyone that the car was every yours
Nigga you have the downs. Once again you need to learn how to read.
>I have and can keep.
^laid out definition every post.
>Can they prove something is stolen?
If a nig takes your bike, until you take it back or can prove to police that particular bike is yours, it is now his bike.
Can you keep a stolen car? Probably not.
Can they prove its stolen? Yes.
You are a low IQ black nagger baboon.
this answer
to steal something is to take someone else's possession without their consent, ownership has nothing to do with it. if I pick up a stick in the woods, and someone comes and takes it from me, that is theft without legal ownership. likewise one can steal that which was stolen.
ownership is a claim; it can only be disputed by power, like any claim.
“ayo gibs me dat fo fee”
The transferrable right to exclusive possession, use, or utilization.
Late entrant but a strong contender.
We have an actual definition, which is actually negatable.
I'm not sure how you would define these terms, but as a definition it seems complete.
It would leave
>non transferable
>nonexclusive
>not possesible
>not utilizable
And I suppose "non consumable" as the corollary.
This is in fact the first complete definition in the thread, good job
>non transferable
Yes, this would be an intrinsic property of the entity itself. Ownership is obviously (I hope) not an instrinsic property, but a contingent one.
>nonexclusive
Yes, ownership is, ipso facto, a property that implies exclusion.
>not possessible
Requires clarification. If you mean that one cannot own a thing that can't be directly, physically held or occupied, then I'm not sure I agree, but I'd want to talk/think it out to be sure.
>not utilizable
I used the logical operator "or". Not "and". I don't agree that utilization is a necessary condition of ownership, rather that utilization is among the capacities exclusively conferred by ownership.
Those are the corollaries, things which would invalidate ownership. So you are right to say none of these could be true of an owner thing or an owner
Of course you can transfer it ownership
Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk
perhaps this is a larger example of ordo ab chao
natural law is chaos. if you dont defend your kill, a scavenger will steal it.
so man created order. we tamed chaos with deeds, contracts, and police forces.
perhaps optimists of the world can take us a step further and tame more inequalities of the natural world
Mine
I think the most important thing is that you possess certain rights over a thing you own and these are mutually recognized. The rights differ from thing to thing of course.
This all depends on what the thing actually is.
Certain things you own will be recognized merely on your word, other things of a more serious nature may demand documentation and/or recognition by a governing body.
For instance, the title to a piece of property.
There are also different types of ownership depending on the relationship to the thing. A ship captain can be said to own the ship he commands in one respect, but also the line or navy to which it belongs can also be said to own it. The ownership is shared in a unique manner.
A father can be said to own his wife, and the parents can be said to own their children. This relationship differs from the way a master may own slaves.
If I could sum up a definition, I think it would be, "A special relationship between two beings, the superior of which be called "owner," in which the owner possesses certain rights over the second, that being dependent on the nature or circumstances of either being, which are mutually recognized by their community."
Not perfect but I could improve it.
there is no difference. the state is just a bigger gun. the state can also become instable, bring your proprety 'rights' with it
'squatter rights' are a good example. those laws dont just transfer unused property (their intent), they prevent the rightful owner from using violence to evict the squatter. that's the state using their big gun the transfer property in a socialist way.
squatter laws were once popular in history bc large blocks of city property were abandoned during economic crashes. they are unpopular during times of economic stability
That's a fair explanation, if the law is a threat by the state then it could be said the state owns everything by dint of force.
But if that's the case I would question the divisibility of that force.
Just like a corporate, the state is an abstract entity. If a cop seizes your car, does that car belong to the cop personally or the state the cop represents?
Could the cop not act against the state, and on that basis a reflective argument be made that on the basis you can fight the law and fight the state, things remain owned by the possessor?
i guess its just a matter of definition. posession is a bit more reliable than abstract ownership. an example is if your car gets towed: the towing company doesnt own your car (yet), but good luck repossessing it without paying
This is why the concept of ownership is so difficult, it's proximity to "possession".
Can a person possess somthing they don't own and vice versa? It's very hard to explain why without threatening the definition of ownership to started with.
Ah now here's an interesting thing, the first person who's definition of rights falls within a social framework.
Everyone else's definitions seem based on force or soverign law
I don't necessarily disagree with the principles of violence many anons seem to believe.
Two people can both have legitimate claims to a thing, neither one gained that thing immorally. Who does it belong to? In the past, violence was often the tool that answered the question.
>May I with right and conscience make this claim?
But it would seem that you are arguing ownership is the social recognition of the result of a conflict, possession being akin to winning, ownership being akin to others recognising that you have won
GIVE ME A PLATFORM, AND I WILL LIBERATE THE WORLD FROM GLOBALIST TYRANNY
An ideal of worldy possessions and our rights to them. Coase therom is a good read if you are interested. I don't believe in it because it begs the question of whom decides, aka the state, thus imposing on us that the state dictates rights to ownership, which implies they own everything. But that's kinda where this is all going anyways it feels. The government has a monopoly on violence so truly who owns anything
I guess some of the distaste with the government deciding, which seems inevitable as a stateless state is just some fantasy, is that my government would not be just. It sucks to know that what I own could not be mine if they decide they don't like me.
No of this implies I won't fight. I just don't trust the gov to do the right thing
You try to take it from me, I have the right to shoot your thievin' ass.
Ownership is a consensus algorithm. I cannot own something unless there is consensus that I do. Human construct
means you paid your israeli tax stamp or stole it somehow
watch this 11 minute gospel video if you want to go to heaven after you die.
what a fag probley smoked some gay weed duh what is ownership means most likey israelites steal your money for there nose
There are a few seperate threads here im struggling to seperate
>ownership synonymous with possession, dependent on violence
>ownership as a civil construct, the state being violence manifest
>ownership being moral
>ownership being a social recognition of one of the above being primary possession
If a fascist turns up and argues moral possession less state recognition we would seem to have all four sections of the compass bITT
>Make me
Power
like that huge 14 inch dildoh under your bed that sums it up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics)
But that's total COPE because those three are in direct conflict. "Bundle" here is a euphemism for a false definition.
This is in fact the first definition in the thread I would reject, the others being merely vague definitions or falacious arguments.
You win the strange distinction of giving the first false definition.
Try to express that as a logical argument and you will see how hopeless it actually is in terms of sneaky premises
>those three are in direct conflict
This is the only part of your post that addresses the definition.
They're "in direct conflict" only because the owner can't do all three at once. But so what? You don't nee to practice all your rights at once to have them.
>Try to express that as a logical argument and
>t. Condescending asshole.
Ah, but there's the issue.
Because the three terms are in conflict it creates a situation where if any one of the three is distributed it creates a false definition.
And that's what's happening right now in America, you have many situations where three different parties have distributed rights over the same thing (typically land) and then all three use the same definition to prove the land is theirs. All three are correct not by degree but to the exclusion of one another, because it's a false definition.
That's why you can't express it in dialectics
You're saying examples of poorly defined property rights prove that property rights don't exist.
Thats a tortology.
I'm saying that you've given a false definition, which is used principally in poor faith by those who don't accept it themselves.
A thing, with associated rights, yielding a combination of A, B, C. This doesn't work as a definition where
A. A. Is yielded universally. So for example the sun is of universal utility and that would ( and actually does) lead to collective entities like the WEF trying to claim they own the sun because they represent all the users of the sun.
B. Where someone steals one of the three features of ownership then makes the circular argument that it wasn't theft because they possess the thing (again, absolutely typical of American law). This usually happens when someone gains a indirect benefit of an asset, then tries to claim damages for losing that benefit. 80% of civil litigation takes this form and a bizarre volume relates to trees on private land
C. Where the state tries to seize private property, claiming their tax on the thing is a feature rather than a condition of ownership (see: ATF)
It's a false definition, and the only one ITT I'd actually reject on technical grounds
>used principally in poor faith by those who don't accept it themselves.
Ad hominem
>A. A. Is yielded universally.
You're saying the existence of The Commons proves that property doesn't exist.
>WEF trying to claim they own the sun because they represent all the users of the sun.
You know they're logically wrong yet you use this as an example.
>B. Where someone steals one of the three features of ownership
Poor implementation does not invalidate a definition.
>C. Where the state tries to seize private property, claiming their tax on the thing is a feature rather than a condition of ownership
Same reply.
Yes, I'm saying that your definition is false because
A. People will steal things by claiming that thing is actually part of the commons.aka. communism.
B. Collectives will deny being thieves, arguing they represent the victim aka. WEF, cultural Marxism
C. People who have stolen a benefit will then claim having the benefit means they can't steal the thing.
And its not that these are practical problems, if we accept your false definition none of these three people would actually be wrong.
It's not just a vague definition or falacious reasoning, it's a false definition.
You've swallowed a blue pill burger anon, your system wasn't designed by the good guys
These are all examples of false claims. Criminals can claim whatever they like. Doesn't make it true.
>Murderer claims he didn't do it.
>Welp, I guess there's no definition of murder.
That's why I say, try to write the arguments in logical format.
These are not mere claims, if you accept a false definition it creates a cascade of arguments which are logically true but manifestly false.
>the arguments
Definitions are not arguments.
>false definition
Definitions are neither true nor false. They're definitions.
Claims, statements, etc can be true or false.
By false I should say falacious. Your definition is technically falacious as distributing any of the last three terms creates a logical conflict.
Cmon now, penguins are birds. Read the sticky
>By false I should say falacious.
Same error.
>distributing any of the last three terms creates a logical conflict.
>distributing
You are polluting my definition and then dismissing your polluted definition.
Your definition is false because it is made up of more than three parts unless the features of ownership are taken as a single part, but being three you cannot condense then into a single term for the same reason,
Implied violence is a spook, you can't take the macht out of machtpolitik.
It's a definition, followed by the definition of its (and their) logical terms. The first sentence is the definition.
Owning a shirt is practically possessing it, and being granted the civic rights to cousin it within the relevent juresdiction.
>Define "ownership"
1. That which requires permission to touch
2. its a mythical objective of every human to try to achieve at like something once in a lifetime.
3. A goal that is unattainable under "shekleism".
You don't need to put inverted commas around shekleism, thats a definition that's mutually accepted.
I stated from the outset that giving a definition implies acceptance of the concept, which btfo the israelite who might otherwise have dumped moot definitions into the thread instead of rejecting the premise that things can be owned
>the premise that things can be owned
So this whole thread is your argument that ownership is a social construct?
Why didn't you just say that?
You don't understand, what I'm saying is that by asking for a definition of ownership I'm
A. Not accepting poor faith definitions from israelite who don't accept the concept
B. Not trying to prove the concept is true by claiming a definition is possible, I'm not "begging the question"
It's a very common feature of Socratic dialogue to state at the outset that you are arguing in good faith and will not accept arguments made in poor faith; which seperates this from rhetorical debate where poor faith arguments abound
>A. Not accepting poor faith definitions
You need to do more than not accept them. You need to show their faults.
>B. Not trying to prove the concept is true by claiming a definition is possible,
This expresses what you're NOT doing. OK...
It's a feature of socratic dialogue that poor faith speakers aren't acknowledged at all.
You will see I've engaged with anons who's arguments are vague or falacious, but nobody who rejected the premise of the question.
It's basically rule number one of Socratic dialogue, never answer a question when you don't accept the premise; never consider an answer of someone who does not accept the premise.
Thus while the premise is obvious I feel the need to state that explicitly at the very start
>while the premise is obvious
What is it?
I ask for a definition of ownership, the premise being that things can be owned. Fairly straightforward.
If you don't believe things can be owned, I won't acknowledge your definition of ownership for reasons that should also be obvious, you would be arguing in poor faith to try and define something you didn't believe in
Why don't you anwser to 440622612
Is that too hard to understand that you need things in order to survive and that you have a chance earn and right to own them and that they must not be taken away; that is a natural right
I'm not arguing against ownership, I'm saying that I won't engage with people who reject the concept.
I'm afraid I don't understand
>
(You)
Sorry, that was elliptical, I have omitted a lot.
1) You have a right to live and to develop in dignity
2) Therefore, since you orignially only have your bare life and body, you need stuff to survive and to develop in a civilized manner.
3) This bare minimum of things that you need to live should be owned. Either by inheritance, by earning them or by grant
4) This is why ownership is a right - you need it as a human being and you can have it in various ways.
5) If you argue that some welfare "state" will care for you, you will face state employees that have no idea of your right. They will treat your right as a privilege that can be revoked when they deem it right. Same applies to digital currency or central bank money, they can make for you and withdraw it from you just as they please
>They will treat your right as a privilege that can be revoked when they deem it right
you mean like your employer does?
That is the nature of a privilege. You can enjoy it, but the person that grants it can revoke it anytime even without explanation. Maybe like a license; in general, you are not entitled to fly a plane. Under certain circumstances, an exception is made but it can just as easily be revoked by the authority in power. Somewhere in the wild or in outer space, you can fly as much as you want if you know how and have the means for it; no privilege needed there.
you sound like the type to let your fiance get fucked by the king before your wedding. 'if we dont he'll kill us'!
he cant kill us all you cuckold. organize and unionize before they take that away too
There is no premise for your comment. I explained or defined what a privilege is. It can be granted and revoked by an autority. Deal with it. Also, enjoy your central banking money and your free health care and free media. It is all a hoax
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Life and liberty yes, property no.
Why make the distinction?
Life and liberty are bound to your body. Property is a thing outside of it. To be honest, you could argue you have also no right to these. It's all about violence and the ability to defend these things. It's just easier to defend life and freedom since you can move yourself easier than all your belongings.
So guess what, we have no righs to anything outside of a state. Great.
Nobody else gets to tell me what to do with it.
>You don't actually own much in this world
Does the person who "tells" then own the thing, or does that "telling" merely invalidate your ownership?
its whatever you can get away with having without contest, ie your claim over property is undisputed or elsehow violently defended with success
Its having a gun and standing next to things you think are cool.
try and take it off me
>die
i still own it shitskin, and there's nothing you can do about it
Many men can pick up the same gun one after another, if each of these men owns the gun concurrently then the ATF will own every gun eventually.
>atf
the absolute state
That's what I mean, your definition is so poor that even the ATF could use it in their defence.
The ability to distribute violence on thieves without repercussions
How strange, power or violence only proves that you can defend your possessions or reclaim them. Juice much?
ITT OP argues that difficulty in implementation proves that definition is impossible.
It's like saying that some rockets blew up therefore physics is invalid.
No, I'm speaking philosophically.
You must be able to define ownership of you believe in ownership, otherwise your cultural views ammount to superstition.
You believe in ghosts, you believe in ownership, you can't prove either exist
>You must be able to define ownership of you believe in ownership
Everyone ITT but the trolls would buy this. Are you looking for a straw man?
The other way around.
If you accept the concept, you may give a definition.
If you don't accept the concept, you can only straw man and you aren't welcome ITT
theft
Basically, whatever you pee on or pee around its perimeter is yours.
How many people own your mother then?
I'll kill you if you touch my stuff.
Is that your finger on your hand? Why is it yours? I think i should own your finger
How is this:
Ownership is where an agent lawfully possesses a thing; where an agent is an entity that may phisically possess a thing, lawfully is a status granted by the eminent force bearing on the force of possesion, and a thing is that which may be possessed.
There is only one exclusion; being a thing which is temporarily unpossesable, where eminent force would bear but for the absence of an agent.
Now for a fairly exaustive negation:
1. A nonagent cannot own a thing, thus a dead person, an imaginary person, agency is a requisite of possession.
2. A thing cannot be illegally owned, that is a conflict of terms. A thing sold by a thief is not lawfully sold and thus isn't concurrently owned.
3. A collective cannot own things as its phisical agency is a feature of the collectives agents. Note this is a technical not a moral distinction. A cop is lawfully depriving someone of ownership of a seized thing, not seizing ownership of that thing
4. A thing is unowned if it cannot be possessed. All abstract assets are unowned rather than unownable. Not moot because it applies to the argument that "nothing can be possessed" is negatable.
2.1 eminent force is the greater force which is not manifest.
2.2 bearing is by dint of being greater that the manifested force
2.3 the force of possession is not a new term, it is possession+bearing
3. (The big exception which really only relates to asteroids, the center of the earth, subatomic assets)
There is actually no new terms
These are very good and accurate statements about ownership (except as they confuse ownership and possession),
But you didn't define it. You talked about it without defining it.
What does it mean to own, say, a shirt?
It means that you need it to function in this world. It belongs to you. You have acquired or made it your own either by earning it, inheriting it or by grant. Basically, you need the insight that you own your dear life and for your life to continue and prosper, you need AND own stuff from the other world, other than your mere self. You have a right in this world that is more important than random claims that people make
It means that you need it to function in this world. It belongs to you. You have acquired or made it your own either by earning it, inheriting it or by grant. Basically, you need the insight that you own your dear life and for your life to continue and prosper, you need AND own stuff from the outer world, other than your mere self. You have a right in this world that is more important than random claims that people make
I agree with what you are saying, but you're justifying ownership (correctly, IMHO) of essentials.
Owning a shirt means that you can wear it, discard it, sell it, give it away, use it as a rag, burn it...
Use, transfer, abandon, or destroy.
I agree, it is transferable; but ownership, in the first place, is a necessity
>3. A collective cannot own things
Can Cleveland-Cliffs own a steel mill?
That is the question it there is something like a legal person opposed to a natural person. The legal person is the foundation of Western prosperity because people could found a firm without having the risk of being personally responsible for their endeavors as entrepreneurs, they were only responsible for a defined sum or risk capital. That is ok. However, it can also be abused as we can see in the banking system and also in corporations it has a dehumanzing effect
Fucking retards, all of you
Uncontested unilateral access with no need for consent and no oversight from any 3rd party.
So you couldn't own land in China?
No the CCP owns all land in China.
You vont haff it.
Read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlen.
Ownership is the property instanced on what is mine by nature. What is mine by nature is what is given to me by Fate. What, by the power of my spirit, I dominate and is therefore my dominion.
Fate can give and take away whatever from you at any time, therefore those who are able to keep the dark at bay and the light on high own whatever they keep safe by the power of their own being. This is called Regality and is the true meaning of Regere, or ruling.
Ever wonder why a holy relic is said to "belong" only to the one who is "worthy"? You can only have what you are worthy of having.
That's not a workable definition because there's an internal conflict between
1. Natural possession
2. Fate
3. Struggle
Just like the americans three kids are all going to snatch at the same flute speaking the exact same words
In what way are they in conflict? There is no struggle against fate.
>flute problem
If I decide by further inquiry that they don't deserve it, because they're all too petty and greedy, I wouldn't give the flute to any of the kids.
Interesting how the kids form a triad. What did the creator mean by that?
Anyway thought experments of that sort are useless. You always have to assume that people in them have no freewill, like the trolley problem.
>I pull the lever and free the one person as it's easier to free one person that 5.
>You can't save them.
>Why not? Nowhere in the formulation of the problem is said I can't move or have a knife in my back pocket.
>You just can't.
>Interesting how the only way you'll get me to act evil is to remove all of my agency. The blood of the poeple killed by the trolley is not in my hands! But in the hands of the evil god who's forcing this unlucid dream on me!
It's a semantic ploy, a spell to limit your range of options like the overton window.
If I can't fend of such a destiny then I'm not worthy of life and was fated to die.
>Isn't that a bit occult?
It's traditional.
>religion
for shudras
Italy complete ruins the thread. Same with WW2.
Dominate your life while undergoing capital punishment. Your train of thought still is nice, though
>able to keep the dark at bay and the light on high
Isn't that a bit occult? That is not enlightened reasoning, it is rather religious
Everything is religion, politics, money, man made laws, ideologies at it's fundamentals. All begin and end with idolizing and ultimately worship, be it through willing collaboration or forced.
ownership is being white man
Who was the first to own the land?
Essentially:
Well, ownership as contingent property is pretty fluid in definition. One could say that the first owner of any land would've been the first person or group who could occupy it to the exclusion of others. The individuals that this would entail are mostly lost to history, and are likely to be largely prelingual.
But now states exist, and enforce ownership of nearly all land by force of law. We can stroke each other about what that "really" means, but if we end up with a definition of ownership that doesn't permit things like absentee landlords or corporate leases or eminent domain or intellectual property etc then we're wrong, and talking about some other metaphysical concept than ownership.
Greed and claim, that is not ownership; that notion makes the world the hellhole it is today
>that notion makes the world the hellhole it is today
This is exactly what I mean. You find the fact of the matter distasteful. I don't disagree. But our aesthetic preferences about it don't change how ownership works as a matter of fact. In reality people can own dirt they've never stepped on, legal entities can own songs written by people that died before any of their employees had been born, cosmetic companies can buy the foreskins of babies who couldn't consent to elective medical procedures from hospitals with no legal requirement to seek permission for the transaction from parents. That is the reality of ownership, in law and in fact. No amount of sophistry is going to change it. If you distill ownership down to some abstract essentials that don't allow for these things then you've ended up with an incorrect definition of ownership, one that is contradicted by reality.
Well if someone owns land and you buy it from them, then the contracts should go way back to the original owner. So who was the original owner?
the original owner was whoever the state recognizes to have been the original owner
equivalent to how the first owner of a patch of land was the first to start stabbing people with a stick for trespassing, or even way back to when we were primates defending our territories with tooth and claw
There should be a paper trail.
that's not how ownership works
ownership is literally just whatever the superior force determines it is
the only thing that has changed is that we no longer use tooth and claw or a pointy stick, but the superior force of the state, ultimately backed up by its military in extreme cases
if the state says "fuck you, my land now", then it's their land, until some other superior force comes along and claims ownership of the land
I mean 'official' ownership that is somewhere on a piece of paper that says 'X owns this land'. Who was the first and when?
again, that's not how ownership works
ownership is just what the most superior force determines
the "first" owner is whoever the state recognizes to have been the first owner, regardless of how that was determined
The first that created a state and had pen and paper.
So the state basically grabbed all the land when it was created and then gave it to some and sold it to others?
It's like when, I own your mother's ass, and even though it's hers in the end, and goes back to her ownership after I'm done, It's mine as long as my hands are gripping onto it.
Something that is so much mine I will kill you for trying to take it.
Its already been done. Right of primary control and enjoyment of the benefit. This isn't even an interesting question.
possession is 9/10ths of the law. There is some personal responsibility in protecting what you own the law wont always side in your favor.
Nicely put, but prone to conflict
Legal ownership is the right to call punitive organs of society (police) against people who interact with an object you own in a manner that you do not approve of.
Tresspassers will be shot. There is the executive for you
For me, it's abducted, slowly drained of their blood and life force, and look into my eyes as the last spark of his life fades away into the void. Because I'm passionate.
You literally sound like the biggest homosexual. I thought after the italian guy it couldn't get worse.
Well, there you go, your opinion is the perfect example of unwarranted ownership, because you can keep it, I don't want it. XD
😀 😀 😀
Well, I hope you won't be judged by your peers
There does not exist any human that has a right that I don't also have.
Who is this "david" ?
And why does he think his deity is superior to mine?
Frage doch zuerst nach dem Wort des HERRN!
2. Chronik 18,4
>Define "ownership"
A thing which is recognized by social convention as belonging to an individual or group. In the absence of social convention that which an individual or group is capable of defending through force.
Any bandit can claim that. This is why we have war in Ukraine
A
NONS
ownership is literally defined by maxim as:
"The right of primary control and enjoyment of the benefit."
Period. That is it. Settled upon through centuries of israeli debate.
That's the definition, and there is no dissembling you can apply to confuse it
>hurr what's a right?
Concensus that you may act without reproach. Don't even try to divorce "ownership" from "a right" with sophistry, because its idempotent.
Ownership IS a form of "right."
Is. Equals. Defined as.
>hurr what's primary
Penultimate. Not exceeded by another.
>hurr whats control
555 Come on now.
>hurr whats enjoyment of the benefit
A thing's value is considered in law as the benefits a person can recieve from it, wether that be its utility or the profit off letting or licensing it.
>HURRRR BBBUT ITS ALL JUST SO.. SO.. SUBJECTIVE TO THENWHIMS OFNTHE RULERS AND SOCIETY!1!!
Yep. Exactly. Welcome to how things are. Lawfags are laughing at your right now because: "Yes."
>but what if i take it from you?2???
Thats not ownership. Go to bed.
>idempotent
don't use words you don't understand, it's just embarrassing
you didn't even manage to use it in anything remotely close to the right way
>Penultimate. Not exceeded by another.
lmao
seriously, learn what words mean before you use them, retard
the word "penultimate" does not mean "super duper ultimate", it means "second to last", like "second" is to "first"
That's one thing I find so entertaining and comical about 4chins and it's users. Yous are so pretentious and fake, wearing your little masks and camouflages, pretending yous are enlightened, knowledgeful, love to use your little complicated words and pretend yous are not simpletons.
I can see right through yous, each and every one of yous here.
Well, there you go, your opinion is the perfect example of unwarranted ownership, because you can keep it, I don't want it. XD
AHHHH GOT ME!!
exclusive management rights
Does not need to be defined. Even chimps understand it.