Not necessarily. Ownership is gained by putting formerly unused resources to first use (homesteading) or by aquiering resources through buying or as a gift. One can not claim ownership without putting resources to use in some way. For examples the act of circling an area of 500 acres of unowned land, wouldn’t make you the owner. Ownership means mixing resources with ones own labor, not just declaring a formerly unowned resource to belong to oneself.
The concept of ownership arises out of a need to resolve conflicts: that is, situations where one person wants to do something, another person wants to do something else, and it is impossible for both people to do what they want. Ownership is a way of allocating the right-of-action to one person rather than to the other. Thus, most basically, what is owned is not space or physical objects, but the right to perform certain actions.
Now, it just so happens that the collection of actions pertaining to a particular object or place are often bundled together and traded as a single unit, so it’s more convenient to say “I own this object/land” as shorthand for “I own the rights to all actions pertaining to this object/land.” Still, there are cases where this neat rights-bundling doesn’t occur, and to continue to speak of ownership in this way only leads to confusion.
For example, suppose I want to build a factory near your house, but the factory will produce noise during the daytime, and you currently own the right to live in your house noise-free. I can purchase a noise easement from you, giving me permission to produce 90dB of noise during the daytime. What, exactly, do I now own? The simplest answer is that I now own the right to produce 90dB of noise during the daytime. You might be able to fudge this into ownership of geometrical spaces, perhaps by saying, “I, the homeowner, give you ownership of the space surrounding each air molecule in my house, but the ownership shall transfer back to me if you vibrate them back and forth too intensely, or when it’s nighttime…” but I don’t think that’s really helpful.
Ownership is the physical control of a resource, property is resources held thereby in physical control. Legal property is property regarded as legitemit by the defacto enforcer(s) of dispute arbitrations. What you are arguing for is a specific method of justifying property, property does not cease to be property (nor does an owner cease to own) simply because in your view he, in your view, does not have a legit. claim to said property.
I agree, I should have been clearer in spelling out this being a justification for proper legitimized ownership.
Likewise, I should try being less pedantic on occasion.