It seems like there's a lot of talk about private property and ownership in politics, but I don't think these terms have been well defined or looked at in any detail. Here's my opinions on the matter. My apologies if this is too long-winded thoughts, critique, alternate views welcome:

'Ownership' is a two dimensional psychological abstraction, held in place by punishment and reward.

1. To understand one dimension, and how this concept develops, we can look at two-year-olds. One kid might find a toy, another will try to take it. The first screams, punches, and bites the other, who flees in retreat. Then the first child is reinforced in the idea that they own the toy. Or if the first kid loses, there is a transfer of ownership.

On a large scale, ownership of land is not much different. One group of people assert that they own a section of land. Another may challenge it, resulting in screaming, punching, and biting on a larger scale. Then both groups will retreat to a state of mutual annoyance, allowing some imaginary boundaries to be respected. Police, judicial systems, and military take the role of the punishment aspect in "civilized" societies (we have someone else do the biting).

This is why I think many in the U.S. see property rights and guns rights as going hand in hand (it's consistent). If someone tries to take some land from us, we kill them. Ultimately though, we might question if the land really belongs to anyone, and if we are merely killing people because we don't like what they do. All pretensions aside, there's really no justifications for this.

2. The second dimension of ownership is merit based. For example, if someone plants a seed, we might say they "deserve" the fruit from that tree. This is a community concept of reward. This is different than punishing those that attempt to claim ownership, since ownership is not challenged. Possibly a society rewards desired behavior that helps the group in the long run.

But generally, there's really only two components to modifying behavior and maintaining a set of psychological states: punish unwanted behavior, and reward desired behavior. The idea of ownership is largely held in place by the overall psychological makeup of the group.

Note: The idea of a group is necessarily built into the concept. If there's only one person stuck on an island, it doesn't make much sense to say he owns anything (the concept breaks down). THe added restriction is that the population size needs to be greater than one.

As far as political/economic bias of the concept, I think it's neutral. One dimension tends to go along the lines of capitalism, the other is more aligned with socialism. But historically, ownership has been used more in the capitalistic vein...

Interesting take.

I think that there's an aspect you haven't yet considered.

Suppose I like to collect pretty rocks. Suppose they have no use to me or anyone else, I just happen to like them.

Suppose you like them, too.

Now, what if I go on a long journey in search of a nice rock, and I find it after months of difficulty and danger. I bring it back, and say it's mine.

(BTW, it's an analogy--please bear with me, and let's not get too sidetracked on the ethics of removing a rock from nature and calling it one's own...)

While I was gone, you watched television, ate, and slept.

When I bring the rock back, you declare that it's not mine, that ownership is artificial, and it's actually ours to share; that I have no more right to the rock than you do.

I've done nothing to benefit society, that I should be granted the rock on merit, so your aspect #2 is out. OTOH, I would prefer that society agree with me that the rock is mine (or at least, mostly mine), without the threat of violence in order to keep it. IOW, I don't want to default to your #1, the threat of biting.

The fact is, I paid for the rock in time and effort and risk. Shouldn't a fair society agree to honor that, to some extent?

That's a good point. Maybe this should fall more under #2, but I should remove the idea that it needs to benefit society (I'm a little unsure about this myself).

I think that the rock is yours, based on your talents and hard work. I wouldn't challenge your claim to it.

Perhaps though there is a benefit to society. We would want to reward that kind of virtue. I mean, I'm not rewarding the rock itself, but your behavior that led to the acquisition ... a hard work ethic.

Alternately, if you kill a person and take their rock, it might also involve the same amount of time, effort and risk, but would lack the societal reward (the police come and bite your leg, forcibly taking ownership ).

I'm not sure... you raise a good point.

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.)

Yaaarrrrgggg, do you own anything?

@Rasczak: What kind of reply is that.. One that demands a response but on what, anyway, but is not one it self. If you disagree with yaaarrrgg's OP or find it stupid somehow, at least say what. There is something to be set here; what are your ideas about ownership? If you somehow find a discussion about this pointless.. tell us why...
Personally, i like bottom-up theoretical approaches to things. And that is what it is, i hope that your practical experience with it has not closed your mind about that. Is that what your sentence implies? that the current approach wreaks of lack of practical experience? I must say, i have never owned much, perhaps do not intend to.(Depends on how much responsibility i will want to have.) But i think i have a model about ownership in my head..
Even if there is some practical problems with it, they might be based on current legal systems; and thus do not mean they exclude anything here now.

In a recent thread elsewhere we were attempting to define “person” and were in heavy conflict. One person on the thread said that a person can only be a human because that is the law and it took him about a page and a half to prove and reprove his point.

And in the sprit of philosophy, I came back with this and my belief that the law doesn’t define me, I do. I am offering this because my argument is in part about how ownership come to be today.

RE: Imo you have only offered opinions and labeled them as factual in the end. This is supported by a style of reasoning that is designed to emulate factual authority through a style of pier pressure, but by my own sensibilities are simply factoids presented through a need to conquer and rule. but don't get me wrong a very acceptable style indeed.

Factoid:- something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

I am reading much of the language you offered as based on paternal and Anglican style of assigning values that have, through the centuries, won the world away from other styles of belief, thought and language. In other words governance and freedom, but it never did really defeat them from existence.

Those exiled hold the defining characteristics for the word person that I would defend because I have first hand experience in living and believing through some of them and along with many other persons and people in this world despite your assertion to the laws claim to systematic supremacy over human thought.

Now that the question is asked to define the word, whose language as offered will seek ownership in authorizing our language, and whose will seek to simply be included as one of the authoritarian’s in texts? I would leave that distinction as my finest point in my larger context. One seeks to divide and conquer and one seeks a holistic and harmonious existence.

And please, look to the history books and how they are vivid in their criminally influenced natures the farther and back you look in authorship and to a direct reflection of the nature I am speaking to.

I know of a great number of Native Americans and other aboriginal peoples across the globe that would disagree with these factoids as you have offered. After all are they no more than simply heirlooms of supremacy as dictated through the victors of countless conquered lands of people and now amalgamated into our current state of processing what we still need and seek? Lets just call it supreme authority for the sake of my argument.

We seek it though all modes these days and as so, we see our past and the pasts of others as conquered as nothing diverse to our own righteous verse of possibility, authorizing us to debunk and disbelieve in any possibilities that say there ever was anything more natural than the law we have now.

I would point to the social origins of these precedents as presented here in your text. I would point to the conquering states and religions which are simply belief systems of the most tenacious peoples that reign over popular thought today and whose authorities were born simply by the nature of their willful force and animalistic need to dominate others rather than anything that would be offered as noble or a righteousness in spirit.

One of the styles of thought that we hold dear today and at great consequence to those opposing it, is the premise of ownership and over the living.

For many of the people silenced in the authoring of our world as we recognize it officially, this is a crime against nature and insult to our sensibilities. These are now reflected in our choice to call all living things persons.

These sensibilities are reborn again and again in new generations of people, without political pressures, because there is no need for a contravisional precedent to author them like in those views opposing them; they are of a more natural law that our current state of affairs has no place for recognizing.

For the people defending the precedence of innate supremacy over those opposing it, we have language that states that possession is 9/10ths of the law and this is worn into our psyches.

We have natural law superseded by contrived and political law that divvies up nature for satisfying a need of dominance through ownership of the living, and over everything that can be conquered to the affect. Every law written to this affect is by men and sets a precedent to seek ownership over the people’s thoughts through the conquering of their lands and bodies and then through the use of factoids, their minds.

Factoid:- something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

Forgive me If I am miss-guided in offering my characterizations and considerations, I am willing to be shown my faults if the attempts can rise above the use of force, ridicule, one-sided or unnatural precedents and un-accounting denials. The only fault I am sure will be brought up is that one side appears to have won, but only denies the other still exists which means the deciding is not over yet.

Iam

That was the kind of reply that snaps one's attention from their navel back to reality.

Generally, anything I produce or aquire in fair trade is mine. I own it. There are exceptions of course, but that is the basics of it.

It is the winner take all kind. The kind that says my reality can kick your realities ass. it is a bully answer

I have theory that explains this thinking and in context.
sure its a tedious read, but I haven't found anyone that will refute it either.

So I guess I am the winner taking all in my little mind as I share it without expense or monitary ownership. LOL

take it or leave it as I leave it here.

That's because it makes no sense. It's impossible to follow and very pretentious.

Interesting take, yyaaaarrrrrggggggggg. I would adjust it slightly. We have two ways to lay claim to property:

1. Force
2. Convince people we ought to own it

Force is obvious. As to the other one, you could convince them through your hard work or through conning them, or maybe some other ways. Our system under law is a bit of both, I think.

well fuck you too asshole

I guess that was a little harsh of me. Sorry. It is difficult to follow, though.

you are right it is a difficult read. but everyone here lives the sound bite life and wants to think they can take the easy road on tough issues.
I over reacted too. sorry for that.

But I think I am in the wrong forum. later folks.

If you think everyone will agree with you and will like your occasional overreacting insults, you may be right.

Actually a forum would be boring if all are going to agree...

EDIT: forgot to say, very interesting read yaaarrrgg.

It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement or whether you like me or not. It is because you are only each here to be liked and in very particular ways and It's because there are too few here that can think beyond two sentences. That is why this is a frustrating forum for me, you are all so fucking satisfied with your own laziness. You are perfect for each other and I am just fine without you. clear it up for you?

No, it doesn't clear up anything it doesn't even seem to make sense of any kind. I for example am not here to be liked and perhaps you did notice I get flamed half the day for being a socialist and sometimes even for not being American.

Explain to me why you think we are lazy? We are argue and discuss all day long.

You only think that we can't think about two sentences ahead because we don't agree with you. You don't seem to understand what the others are saying neither.

iam: you raise interesting points...

One thing I'd add is that I don't mean to imply that my opinions were correct or even complete (I've had to rethink some things). It's interesting the comments you make about Native Amercinas and smaller "earthier" commmunities, since I personally view their outlook on land ownership as closer to my own. I'm just trying to describe what I see in the western idea of "ownership." I'm not sure it's even a healthy concept either.

I admit it takes me a while to digest your ideas because you have a unique way of writing. I'd describe it as very abstract and almost like a stream of consciousness (not that this is bad). One thing that would help me understand some of the points better would be more concrete examples ... factoids as you might call them The reason is that when one writes at such an abstract level, it's hard for me to understand the language in all the points.

A problem I run into is that a sentence might be true at one abstract level (for example: "the number zero is real"), but at an even more abstract level we may assign a 'false' value to it. Without some factoids, it's hard to find one's bearings on context. At least, that's the problem I've begun having with language, the more I think about a problem ...

My main point is just that the western idea of 'ownership' is largely psychological.

What about land ownership? It's not produced. Also, if something is not already owned, it cannot be traded. So this means it can't be owned. Do we actually agree on something???!

philosophy challenge: Construct an alternate argument for land ownership, based on your stated criteria.

@Iammyaspectofus: I did find your earlier post a hard read, but some sleep helped. I still dont think i understand it fully.
Agreed, Rasczaks answer is not what i hoped: "i hope that your practical experience with it has not closed your mind about that"
Rasczak irrationally assumes the current state of things about ownership is how it should be. At least it is not rational in a way i can ascertain. He did not give arguments..
Edit: Well, he(and/or others) did give arguments for that line about what property was, although he did not refer to them. Repeating those arguments would not be a bad thing either. But he did not give arguments for his negative response at all, nor refer to them.

I think force and convincing people that someone ought to own it, would be the two ways of defining ownership.(Edit: as yaaarrrggg said, of course) I would also say, that the second is much preferable, and that the second is based on the earlier reasons for ownership.(Although, i might have missed some points.) However, i would say, that the 'force' manner will often be necessary too. Especially if a community decides on ownership, but individuals, or another community disagree on that. I think though, that a community that shares the idea of who owns what should be as inclusive as possible.

But how to achieve this is a rather hard question. Culture already defines it to an extent; but should it not be backed up by law? It seems to me that there are various ways of doing this. And that the idea of how it should define depends on what the goal of it is.
(Reasons set out below(Edit: I mean previous post) where, in same order: productivity, responsibility(including safety), reward, benefit)
Some people say that freedom encompasses ownership as well, so those would say ownership should be treated as something intrinsic to things. Perhaps the reason would be "because they have it already", one point that i guess i missed in my list earlier. To go by the other reasons, ownership in that vain means that they are allowed them to do whatever they want with it.(Besides other rules of such society, like do no harm.)
They are allowed not to use it for production. Whether they lose it/break it is their own business. Safety is perhaps a reason, but not specifically one.(those other rules about harm) It is not specifically a reward, because according to that view, people may trade as they wish. And although the person may benefit from the ownership, it is not the reason.

Other people(including me) think this freedom is less important then actually allocating the resources. The free market may often be good at the productivity- and responsibility-reason, but i do not think it is particularly good at the reward- and benefit-reason. I see no reason, however why the free market should not be usable for its positive aspects.

For the record, I am not saying there are only these two; just trying to get an idea what is out there. Also, if your opinion is the second a bit, it might mean not everything is owned. Like we might keep fossil and archeological finds under ground for future generations to dig up. Like we keep natural reserves for the sake of the thing it self.(One could argue that as ownership by society, though.)
I agree this happens, but i think that it is also -in a way- necessary. Thing is, it should be called assumption, and be admitted. People tend not to want to make unreasonable assumptions if they know the assumption is there.
I do not know exactly how 'person' is to be defined, perhaps human will do for now? I think it is related to what rights (and duties) different creatures have. But that is a difficult question, and perhaps a dangerous one. Although it is stupid, people have used superficial differences to convince themselves other humans were less worthy of living. It is also a very subjective question, i think.