So, wouldn't anything created through exploitation of third world countries (i.e. NOT fair trade) NOT be the property of the company producing those goods? I like that definition.

He owns his right to his opinion and he also owns the right to focus on his naval should he so choose. My question to you is; 'what makes you think you have ownership of directing his focus?' This is not boot camp, it is a discussion board where people have come to talk about what they choose to. And that is the reality of what goes on here.

I am not picking a fight with you, but you can be very condescending sometimes.

You have a lot to say, and others would probably be able to give your views more thought if they could get past the 'talking down to' from you. All the effort one needs to exercise to get past feeling insulted only distracts from your views.

yaaarrrgg happens to be one who works really hard at that with you and everyone else here. We all should be grateful for his efforts to respect and understand our opinions.

yaaarrrgg, you are a very intelligent person and your children are truly fortunate to have such a thoughtful parent.

Thank you rj, I value your compliment!

As for Rasczak's question, the answer depends entirely on the theory of ownership.

Using Rasczak's definition, I don't own much. The land I use was taken by force. Worse, I have no way to know if the trade for goods purchased was fair ... my guess is that much was not. Most of what I make depends on something someone else did. So the answer is (relative to his theory): I don't know, and probably not much.

When unsettled land is settled, that is production. Basically.

I never claimed any ownership of his focus. He was free to ignore my challenge and continue with the navel gazing. You are doing what you accuse me of doing - telling me I should post in a certain way. Nuh-uh.

I consider this thread actual consideration of what property is and how it is defined. Even if it is not that, what makes it navel gazing rather then self reflection? Or are you actually against abstract thought about this?
Hmm, perhaps i should try find definitions of property(I do not agree with) in other peoples websites. The part of ownership/society that is not defined by force is defined by societies will not to 'steal' it. Of course there will always be some criminals for whom little other then force can prevent them taking what society does not think is theirs.(aka steal, imo)

Except that the land was settled. I live in Indiana. That means "Land of the Indians." Generally it was taken by force.

The only thing worse than navel gazing is nose gazing

Do you believe it is wrong to live on property that doesn't belong to you? Why have you not moved to a location that wasn't taken by force?

I'll just accecpt that as 'I know you are, but what am I'..

In response to the OP. I can certainly see where you are coming from, yaaarrrgg.

There is one primal element you may be leaving out however. That is 'fear'. Fear drives much of what we do and don't do. In this case, ownership may be based on the fear of being irrelevant, or better yet, 'impotent'. Power is expressed in a civil society by what and how much we own.

Take the two year old children. What drives some children to want what others have? In my christian day's, I was taught it was selfishness on the part of the child because he/she was born seperated from God's true spirit, thus being a sign of a sinful nature. Some may see this as simply a 'want everything' phase in a child. Personally, I see it more as you do. What it really is, in my view, in extension, is an oportunity to teach the child a basic lesson in our personal myth. That myth may be the idea of; 1)fight for what you want 2)don't want what is not yours, as well as some others. The point is that those lessons early on set us on our path to ownership, and the driving force is of course approval in the eyes of those we depend on for our survival.

As we grow older these lessons are only reinforced day by day through consistency by parents and a society at large.

'I own, therefore I am' becomes the silent mantra.

I think your focus is more political. However, I am not able to seperate the two because personal myth is at the root of all people as I se it. So, I hope you will excuse my slight detour.

I'd say people own things out of necessity or luxury more than they ever own anything out of fear. Name a practical example of someone owning something out of fear.

Smoke alarms maybe? But then, isn't that just being responsible?

1. Guns?

2. "Emergency" savings accounts?

3. Not to delve too far into psychology, but lots of people own certain clothes, not because they like them, but because they fear not looking like they're "supposed to," in their work or social group.

I already did. Perhaps you should re-read my post.

No you didn't, but no biggy. In any case, it just hasn't been shown, and can't be shown that ownership is a concept based on fear.

I agree with Rasczak, I do not think that ownership is not based(as in enforced by) on fear. That basis would be the fear of some kind of force, so i would say that is effectively base on force. It is not a purpose of ownership(itself) either. It can be the reason of owning things, of course.
Perhaps we are prone to confusion of: 'purposes of ownership', 'how ownership is maintained' and owning stuff.

What we're discussing is whether the concept of ownership is based on fear.

Guns? In some circumstances. In far more, people own them for recreational reasons - hunting, sport shooting, or they own them for purposes of self defense, or their job. I put that more in the "responsibility" department along with things like smoke detectors.

Emergency savings accounts: I can see where you'd use the term fear for these, but I still think this falls along the lines of responsibility. It doesn't make sense to not have some money saved, in fact, I think it is irresponsible not to.

There's a line between doing something out of fear, and doing something to be prepared for an emergency. I don't walk around in fear of a hurricane, but I do keep batteries, extra water, and some canned food on hand, and we have a plan for what we'll do as a familiy in an emergency.

The concept of ownership is one of those things that seperates us from the animals. In a pack of wolves, the strongest in the pack is the leader, and he gets first dibs on the kill. Among civilized humans, whoever produced or procurerd something owns it. A system where everything produced is gathered up by the leader then redistributed is like animal behavior (and communism) for my taste.

And it never works out very well either. Not for humans anyway.

Ah ... I totally overlooked that aspect. Even with force, it's the fear of force that does the work most times.

I'm confused .. are we still talking about your theory of ownership, or my personal views?

On your theory: it follows that the Native Americans owned the land, and I do not. It opens up a can of worms if I use the land. Although you could say (as you did with air) that just because something is not owned, it does not preclude its use.

On my personal view: Native Americans did not own the land, and I don't really either. IIRC most (or all?) Native Americans saw the idea of land ownership as nonsense. I largely agree with their outlook. What I paid for wasn't really land, but a police presence ...

EDIT: Nevermind.

Please share... I'm interested in your view.

You mean legal and physical enforcement of the fact that you own the land? If people respect your ownership of land, that might be because: 1) they agree with the system that it is yours. 2) They fear the enforcement. This is the type of fear rjwood means?

In my opinion, ownership is definitely necessary for the various purposes i gave earlier.(except the one i edited to add) And it would be a virtue when the reason people respect it is the first one.
Perhaps this is a part of the justification of my leftish-ness is that if people are starving,(for instance) using resources that can be used to feed them, to make second houses can not really be respected by these people. How could we expect that from them. Maybe a better example is that you can not expect someone who works two jobs for his family to respect a pensioned rich dude with three cars sitting on his ass. They are effectively working to support that old guy.