What's wrong with join ownership?

[gotlucky]

@FlyingAxe

Well, the final say on the matter must come from them as a team. I suppose you could say that it must consist of their equal input (unless one of them declared that he agrees a priori with whatever the other says on the matter).

Equal input is irrelevant to the point Block was making. He even stated that people can be part owners. His point was that it is not possible for their to be more than one full owner. There can be many part owners, but there cannot be more than one full owner. That was exactly what Block said.

@FlyingAxe

I mean: if we define ownership as being able to prevent others from using an item, and three people own a pool, one person decides he doesn’t want it to be open on Sundays, and the other two think it should be open on Sunday, what does the natural law say we should do? Can the first person keep 33% of the pool closed on Sunday? Can he force the others to keep the whole pool closed? Can they force him to keep the whole pool open? (In that case, what happened to his natural rights to the pool?)

I have no idea what would be consistent with natural law. This is the kind of nuance where social norms are useful. I would hope that before any 3 people (or any amount for that matter) go into business together or buy property together, that they would sort out the contractual obligations before they make the final purchase. Not doing so is just asking for trouble.