Must we actually be able to define property at a subatomic level

[Jeremiah_Dyke]

Must we actually be able to define property at a subatomic level in order to rightfully speak of ownership? For example, a title company may define a piece of property within a margin of error in order to avoid boundary problems.

[Angurse]

No.

[Jeremiah_Dyke]

@Angurse

No.

So is there any difference between ownership of property and use of property?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Jeremiah Dyke

@Angurse

No.

So is there any difference between ownership of property and use of property?

We use ‘ownership’ with the prior-later distinction, or concept of “greater claim”, to distinguish between mere possession and this legal status.

This quote is somewhat relevant to the original question:

@nskinsella

In a boundary dispute between blackacre and greenacre, there are clear areas, and we can decide on a place to put the fence, even if it’s not millimeter-precise. In proportional punishment, if we are punishing a minor crime, we know that capital punishment is too severe. So there are limits, that constrain where we place the line in the gray zone. But since paying someone money does not restore them, then what possible standard can you put on how much moeny to award someone? It can’t be purely arbitrary. You have to enunciate some standard–some boundaries on what is clearly too low, and clearl too high.

This article is full of good info/links too.

[liberty_student]

@Jeremiah Dyke

So is there any difference between ownership of property and use of property?

You tell us.

[Angurse]

@Jeremiah Dyke

So is there any difference between ownership of property and use of property?

Maybe. Defining property at a subatomic level won’t change anything though.

[Jeremiah_Dyke]

The original homesteaders used a separate margin of precision when defining their property then what we use today. When they transferred that ownership they used the same margin of precision. The next owner may, by choice or need, define his/her boundaries more precisely. Thus, on most levels the need to define subatomic boundaries is not needed since we operate in a realm exponentially larger. I guess you could say that all property rights exist within the margin of error of measurement.

[Angurse]

Are you ignoring the use/ownership dilemma?

@Jeremiah Dyke

The original homesteaders used a separate margin of precision when defining their property then what we use today. When they transferred that ownership they used the same margin of precision. The next owner may, by choice or need, define his/her boundaries more precisely. Thus, on most levels the need to define subatomic boundaries is not needed since we operate in a realm exponentially larger. I guess you could say that all property rights exist within the margin of error of measurement.

How do you know what the original homesteaders used? Your property exists (at whatever degree of precision) to the point where you still have the better claim.

[Jeremiah_Dyke]

I don’t know the original homesteader unit of measurement, but am speculating that it is broad.

My question is not practical, but more in lines with a thought experiment. I guess I can’t seem to reconcile how ownership can be claimed without being defined by some arbitrary unit of measurement or made by an arbitration company. I can’t reconcile the issues of boundaries with ownership.

[Angurse]

@Jeremiah Dyke

My question is not practical, but more in lines with a thought experiment. I guess I can’t seem to reconcile how ownership can be claimed without being defined by some arbitrary unit of measurement or made by an arbitration company. I can’t reconcile the issues of boundaries with ownership.

All units of measurement are arbitrary. So what? I guess engineering is dead.

Luckily, there is a way to remedy the situation with property:

@Angurse

Your property exists (at whatever degree of precision) to the point where you still have the better claim.

Notice, particular units DO NOT matter.

[liberty_student]

@Jeremiah Dyke

My question is not practical

I’ll say.

@Jeremiah Dyke

I guess I can’t seem to reconcile how ownership can be claimed without being defined by some arbitrary unit of measurement or made by an arbitration company.

You’re missing the entire purpose of conflict resolution via a market for arbitration. The boundaries only have to be defined between the two people in conflict over said boundaries. Since none of us operate on the subatomic level, and since defining boundaries on that level is nearly impossible, I can’t see why any complainant would insist upon such a unit of measurement, knowing it could be used back against them.