In a different thread Lord Mero made some comments (perhaps in a different context) that I believe are worth debating regarding what property is:
Quote from: Sibling Qwertyuiopasd on March 13, 2014, 10:19:39 PM
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on March 13, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: The Meromorph on March 13, 2014, 09:01:16 PM
I believe you will find that even real 'public space' is actually owned by some entity and at some level of abuse will be 'policed' on behalf of that entity.
I'm OK with that, but the universe doesn't care whether I'm OK with it. That's the way it is.
That is an interesting discussion about property and ownership in itself, is the bird the owner of the hole in the tree where she is nesting, or the tree, or a more powerful entity claiming ownership of the forest? A lot of stuff to debate there.
Well, one answer would be that ownership/property is a lie, and doesn't really exist. Birds just live in their holes, at least as long as they are able to defend it from any other bird that might want it.
Granted, property becomes a thing when governments and societies say it is a thing and treat it as such. In which case I think it's basically the same story, but with some more bureaucracy. The United States Government owns all the space within the geography defined as the United States, at least as long as and insofar as it can defend it from others who want control of it (or convince them not to do it, like how Canada is unlikely to invade us and vice versa). Within that, the government gives the land to people within it, the most obvious form of this being the Homestead Act. So then it's some individual or corporation's property because they bought it from the government, or from someone else who did.
Now, I assume there are laws about defining public spaces and what that means, like a restaurant would be a public space, so public indecency laws would apply, and (if I understand non-discrimination properly) the owners couldn't bar people for the wrong reasons. Or like highways are public property, but that's more because they're owned by the government for public use, and of course have their own laws and restrictions.
For some reason I read in his post the suggestion that everything is ultimately owned by something or someone, and the implications of that assertion are far and wide, one of them is hinted by Qwerty as the ability (power) to 'defend' said property, which in turn would suggest that property is a property of power, that is, if I'm able to own something is because I have to power to defend it, or by extension, if by force I'm able to procure it from someone else.
Perhaps I'm reading to much natural law into the argument but I see some philosophical quandaries there.
Imagine a country ruled by a despot (not difficult). An area of the country is arid, deserted, empty. Nobody lives there. There is nobody in the land who owns it or has property rights or anything. Does the despot own that area of land?
According to tradition, yes. If despotic rule is equal to the old understanding of monarchy, then all land, including that privately owned in practice, is the ruler's who just grants the right of use to subjects (and may revoke that grant at his pleasure).
You mean Her Maj. could take my castle away from me?
I think the British changed the rules a bit in one of the revolutions. Not sure which one.
We use laws to determine ownership. Does anyone care to dispute that given enough power, one could have laws changed such that the rules of ownership as we know them are rendered void?
One small example... who owns the seeds that a farmer grows? Does the farmer have the right to re-plant those seeds and produce a harvest the following year? Seems cut and dry to me... but it's not.
Much of what was formerly carried out by the sword is now done with the pen, using lawyers instead of warriors.
Quote from: Swatopluk on March 14, 2014, 07:27:29 PM
I think the British changed the rules a bit in one of the revolutions. Not sure which one.
We only really had one actual revolution, and 20 years later reverted to as before; bit of a damp squib. But maybe Cromwell tinkered. More likely the tax laws that changed ;)
But the change could have been in the 'glorious' one that was not that much of a revolution but did a good deal to redefine British kingship.
Do you mean the Norman Conquest?
No, the one where they called in that Dutch guy to get rid of that Scot.
Replacing the Stewart with a steward so to say.
Ah! Right. Them.
Quote from: Aggie on March 14, 2014, 10:00:50 PM
We use laws to determine ownership. Does anyone care to dispute that given enough power, one could have laws changed such that the rules of ownership as we know them are rendered void?
One small example... who owns the seeds that a farmer grows? Does the farmer have the right to re-plant those seeds and produce a harvest the following year? Seems cut and dry to me... but it's not.
Much of what was formerly carried out by the sword is now done with the pen, using lawyers instead of warriors.
We use the leviathan of government to balance power, that is why going into a house and remove the inhabitants
without a court order isn't a common place. I guess what bothers me the most is that something like slavery is perfectly possible using natural law as a justification to name just one example.