To be able to say "this is MY land you are not allowed to walk on it etc" is a somewhat obsurd concept. By whose decree can you claim this peice of Earth and claim authority over it? How is it moral or acceptable some people have thousands of acres while some people never 'own' the land they reside on? Or the notion that this is "this woman or this man man" belong to me, implying ownership. I am not saying marriage doesnt have its benefits but the possessive mentality i find problematic. I think this concept is a great hinderance to humanity. Its a form of selfishness. Imagine if people didnt claim ownership of say, a house. They decide they want to move, they pack up find a place they like and ask the community where the can find a home. The home you left would be waiting for whoever came along and wanted to live there. No taxes, no 30year enslavement to a financial institution, no obligation. Agree, disagree, im curious of the thoughts of my fellow Blades.
Well... You can be a current occupier/possessor of something and that comes with the sovereignty of said something, based upon the social and cultural constructs in which we live; but there is no such thing as true ownership. To think that some energy 'belongs' to some other energy is ridiculous. The concept doesn't even make sense. As for your example of land, no person or group should be allowed to possess land beyond what each person needs in a fair and even society i.e. your house. There's nothing illogical about land possession, its just that it is detrimental to society to segment and separate people. If there were no 'countries' and simply a load of different cultures and people enjoying the land we live on, a lot of things would be a lot better than they are now.
As far as land ownership goes. If you can protect an acre of land from anyone else using it. Isnt that ownership? In the same sense. If you protect a woman from other men. Is that ownership? It's just now, the means of protection are all confused with laws, money, and corrupt institutions. If you can keep something from other people. That is ownership.
I suppose it is semantics, but alas, I disagree. I don't support that way of thinking. If you can protect an acre of land from anyone else using it, then you can protect an acre of land from anyone else using it. I'm not sure what piece of weird logic you are using to jump to ownership from that. I mean, if you can segregate it from other people, then it means that you have sovereignty over it. But that doesn't equate to 'ownership' IMO and to think otherwise is dangerous.
Ha. What's the difference between ownership and having sovereignty? This debate will soon become an argument on the definition of "ownership". So I'm peacing out before it gets to that.
Yeah I don't to turn it into an argument or anything either don't worry Intellectual debate only for me. This is why I called it semantics, but to answer your question... Sovereignty is having supreme authority over something. Ownership is something 'being' yours in it's very nature. You can have sovereignty over something that doesn't actually belong to you, for example, to demonstrate there is a difference.
You didn't show me an example where you can have sovereignty over something you don't own. Not even at all. If you have supreme authority over something, you may as well just say you own it. You're just finding a new word for "ownership" that fits in to your way of thinking. So yes, it is all semantics.
I think that the OP was referring to the concept of 'ownership' that follows the definition I am using, thus that's the concept I'm using in the discussion - the one that can be used to answer the question.. It's you who is coming up with a new definition.
There is one definition of ownership. Let's both use it. Ownership- the act of possessing something. Sovereignty- supreme authority How can you have supreme authority over what you don't own? Please answer that question.
how does society determine need? All a human technically needs is @ 6x6 cell with food and water -yuri
pretty much this. Ownership is simply the power to keep something to yourself. Ownership is a survival instinct. -yuri you are discussing the "right to ownership" as opposed to "ability to own" -yuri
"In a fair and even society" by which I meant in a society where greed and ego were not a factor. Never suggested that society determines need, or at least I didn't mean to.
By ownership i would say something along the lines of "assuming control over something that isnt intrinsically yours" and the only thing intrinsically yours is you. So ownership is artifically taken, sovereignty is naturally granted. The only thing i have been given is me, life, my body. Aside from that anything i claim is mine is ownership.
where do rights come from? Individuals sovereignty? How do you justify your idea that one doesn't have a right to property ownership? What is a right exactly? Do rights really even exist? -yuri
We have a right to property because i wasnt gifted wings, to my chagrin, so i have to be able to reside somewhere. Right to property doesnt necessarily mean ownership, more like stewardship. I mean, just because rich person was born before me and claimed all the land does it mean i am subject to his claim? Only if i grant him that claim is it valid.
Btw i dont need to justify my claim per se, one would need to justfy the assrrtion that property ownership is a right. That in order for someone to own property, it therefore means he has sole authority over it and that no other sovereign being has the right or authority to this peice of property . Its an artificial contract the property owner hopes others abide. Im a fan of the constitution but i cannot logically defend the notion of ownership of property.
so your right to life includes right to a place to live? How does this logic work if there are lliterally too many people? -yuri