Join the Discussion - View Single Post

Jasper84 · 07-18-2007

Hmm, way back i tried to define ownership too. I guess OP definition (1) is just defining it by who is able to hold on to it by force. OP definition (2) is much more like my definition, that it is based on society in a less malicious way. Some people seem to have a definition that it is just intrinsic to things that they are owned, and this chain starts at first by people just taking stuff from nature. Others seem to be more like mine! mine! mine!, frankly.

My attempt of a definition of property is that it is given to persons by society, for various purposes: (improved relative to linked version)

Use as object to be productive with.(perhaps one responsibility below)

Account for responsibility. State of the things. Includes
- Position, not losing them.
- Some things are dangerous, and someone must keep them safe.
- Perishables being consumed early enough.

Reward for achievements appreciated by society.

To the benefit of the person it is given too.(In any way) Often according to the rights of that person.

Edit: For the reason that a particular person aught to have it, according to some rule.

yaaarrrgg's number 2 is implicitly justification on doing so; benefit for the person, productivity, reward for appreciated.
As said, some property is given to persons because of their rights. For instance, i think people have the right of gaining wealth to an extent.(You may be rich, you may not hog resources.) So there should be some other way of determining how much resources go to different persons.
Also one must think about what society is, and how that should determine property.(But perhaps that is off topic at this point, since we are talking about theories of ownership.)

My answer with respect of the rocks is that if someone apparently has great emotional interest in those rocks, he should be allowed to keep them to his benefit. If others want them too, that would be appreciation by society, so it can be traded somehow; the achievement being finding those rocks, and giving them away. Also, considering they are things that can be looked at, perhaps he could put them on display and stuff like that.

I do think this view is compatible with capitalism, some things not rewarded by capitalism can be done via tax from that capitalism. (As i said in other threads pure capitalism has pitfalls.)

07-18-2007	#4 (permalink)
Jasper84 under construction Join Date: May 2007 Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands Posts: 593	Re: A theory of ownership Hmm, way back i tried to define ownership too. I guess OP definition (1) is just defining it by who is able to hold on to it by force. OP definition (2) is much more like my definition, that it is based on society in a less malicious way. Some people seem to have a definition that it is just intrinsic to things that they are owned, and this chain starts at first by people just taking stuff from nature. Others seem to be more like mine! mine! mine!, frankly. My attempt of a definition of property is that it is given to persons by society, for various purposes: (improved relative to linked version) Use as object to be productive with.(perhaps one responsibility below) Account for responsibility. State of the things. Includes Position, not losing them. Some things are dangerous, and someone must keep them safe. Perishables being consumed early enough. Reward for achievements appreciated by society. To the benefit of the person it is given too.(In any way) Often according to the rights of that person. Edit: For the reason that a particular person aught to have it, according to some rule. yaaarrrgg's number 2 is implicitly justification on doing so; benefit for the person, productivity, reward for appreciated. As said, some property is given to persons because of their rights. For instance, i think people have the right of gaining wealth to an extent.(You may be rich, you may not hog resources.) So there should be some other way of determining how much resources go to different persons. Also one must think about what society is, and how that should determine property.(But perhaps that is off topic at this point, since we are talking about theories of ownership.) My answer with respect of the rocks is that if someone apparently has great emotional interest in those rocks, he should be allowed to keep them to his benefit. If others want them too, that would be appreciation by society, so it can be traded somehow; the achievement being finding those rocks, and giving them away. Also, considering they are things that can be looked at, perhaps he could put them on display and stuff like that. I do think this view is compatible with capitalism, some things not rewarded by capitalism can be done via tax from that capitalism. (As i said in other threads pure capitalism has pitfalls.) Last edited by Jasper84 : 07-21-2007 at 11:30 AM.