Ethically speaking, I haven’t ceded ownership because I pointed out how not physically possessing something also shows how I can still own it and have possession of it, though not physical possession. I possess it or have it in the shed. It’s not physically in my hand at the moment. Therefore I still own the rake even when somebody else takes control of it physically.
The borrower owns it by being able to wield it with the power of their arms. It is theirs to wield and control. Each action they take with the rake, they own those actions, as those actions are deliberately theirs willed through the structure of the rake. Is the borrower to own the rake unjustly though? Are to we bring ethics into this situation? I don’t need to. But as I said I totally understand how own, semantically, can be embedded with ethical connotations because it’s easier to simply say: I own this. Without having to say each time: I justly own this. But “own” doesn’t have to and it’s not controversial to think that own can be understood without that connotation aspect. I think it’s perfectly sensible to understand “own” without ethical judgment AND I understand how it is sensible to understand “own” with ethical judgment. And each instance (A) without ethic (B) with ethic, both A and B can be understood semantically by reading the one word “own”. It’s a choice by the reader to choose A or B at any given moment or marginal unit.
Yes. Yes. Exactly.
i can choose all day and night to fly. I consciously make that decision, but will it happen? No. It’s beyond my power.
Sadly is as often is the case with certain individuals when they are backed into a corner they attempt to rescue themselves with pet definitions. Despite the fact it is an intilliectual digression. It goes along with what you said earlier.
I don’t really see how that follows. The shed is not someone else.
So you contend that ownership and possession are one in the same?
Yeah, but you aren’t actually flying as a result of your choice. I think that is important to distinguish, as I don’t see how it is then a choice to be made.
Please, spare me the patronizing bull crap. If the definitions of what people are trying to convey to one another aren’t congruent, how can meaningful communication take place? What if I think “property” is only the stuff I find in my belly-button? How am I expected to hold a meaningful conversation with anybody? Shrugging off semantics as just an escape hatch is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
I physically don’t have the rake in my hand that not disputable.
It’s sitting in the shed. I’m not physically restraining it. It is standing up, leaning against the wall. Somebody could sneak in there right now and take it and I would never know as it is even out of my view at the moment.
My sentence doesn’t have the word “shed” in it. I don’t know what you mean either.
Slight difference but they overlap on occasion as one could be used as the definition of the other. The slight difference is when I read “own” I see control emphasized a bit more. Like when somebody plays a joke on somebody else. The person who fell for the joke was owned. But that’s a bit of an urban jargon flavor. To possess seems slightly toned down a notch in which I’m merely holding it, maybe not even physically controlling it or wielding much power through it. That’s my perspective.
People choose to do what is impossible a lot, like bad economics. Such Keynesian brands don’t follow logically from premises but people bang their heads on the wall every day at the Fed. trying to do the impossible. Spend ones way out of a recession! Illogical.
P.S. And who changed the font that we are all now posting from in our responses!! lol
The point is you are building the concept of “Property” from the concept of “Property rights”. As if somehow property rights come before the concept of property. This is a conflation of property and rights to be sure, you fail to recognize is that rights applied to property can only come after the principles of property are recognized first. So you seem to have fabricated a circular definition.
My other point is that people often create their own definitions to support their argument. It’s an easy way to not admit you are wrong, but becomes intellectually counter-productive. My definition, and I am not sure but I think Wilderness would agree, is built apong 3 preceding principles.
That objects are scarce, time is scarce, and the occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy needs or desires.
If any one of those 3 were not the case property would be meaningless, I think you agreed above. In addition property rights would also be meaningless as there would not be property.
Your definition by contrast relies on property rights becomes circular. It assumes property in the definition of rights, then uses that again to define property.
I like that definition filc. I haven’t thought that deeply into the principles of property. I’ve recognized scarcity and occupation of objects, but I haven’t thought about the “time” issue. Yet that’s because I’m not as read in time preference theory as you probably are, but I’m getting there!
But you have still made an effort (albeit slighter than locking it in a vault) to prevent that from happening. You are still trying (somewhat) to prevent the item from being taken. It is still in your control.
How does the fact that you can put a rake in a shed prove that you can still own something after another acting individual has taken physical possession of it. You said therefore, so I assumed you were using a former statement to qualify this one.
So when you put the rake in the shed, you no longer own it. Also, when you lend out your rake, you no longer own it. Is that fair to say, using your definition?
Yeah, I guess I can see that. But from a determinist stand point there are things we can’t choose, like when we get a song stuck in our heads. I know it’s a crappy example, but I’m not too well versed in determinism to give better ones.
So your still deriving your definition of property from rights. Your previous post to Wilderness was entirely built upon ethics. Who has the right to own this or that.
the problem with your definition is that it changes from person to person, culture ot culture, and economic model to economic model. Communists, socialists, fascists and capitalists however all believe in property. Who owns that property whether it be individually or collectively is what changes.
Because when I talk about “property” as opposed to “stuff”, I can’t help but drag ethics into it. It’s like trying to talk about “good” and “bad” without talking about ethics. The word property is an ethical statement (to me, at least).
I don’t find that to be a problem. I just think the concept of property, and all the baggage I associate with the term is phony, a spook, make-believe. Bingo, problem solved.
We cannot know what rights apply to whom and how without first understanding what we are applying rights to. The definition of the object which rights apply to comes before the rights themselves.
First we understand that someone is occupying a scarce good over a specific amount of time. That is property. To make a judgement of whether or not this person has the RIGHT to occupy and employ that scarce good over a specific set of time is an ethical judgement.
For example I may be renting a lawnmower. During the rent the lawnmower is in my pocession. It is my right to hold it in my pocession as agreed per contract. The rights of pocession and ownership change based on need and situation. They are often arbitrary and manipulated to fit the best economic need.
But before we can even analyze those situations we must first recognize that it all boils down to the occupation of scarce objects, over time to satisfy a need.
As I said above. We live in a world where objects are scarce, time is scarce, and the occupation of objects over time is necessary to satisfy needs or desires. Without those 3 both property, and the rights you conflate with them would be meaningless.
Those 3 underlying principles are the framework from which property is built from. Rights to who owns what comes after the fact.
So how does your definition apply when matter is not scarce, time is not scarce, and we need not occupy matter and time to satisfy needs or desires? In that situation would your definition still stand?
Also can you answer my question about the selling of someone else’s property without their consent?