This has stymied me for years and I still struggle with it, especially since I am now a home “owner.”
What is ownership?
Is there such a thing?
If so, in what circumstances?
If so, should there be such a thing?
Thanks! I am beginning to think that ownership is just a euphemism for liability!
The answer really depends on how much you wish to abstract the term “ownership”.
If you want to look at it in the “I have control over X in every facility” and define control to mean a purely “might makes right” sort of way, then ownership is certainly a liability if you own something that others find desirable (and even moreso if that item is a commodity!).
Howerver, in the current sense, the term “liability” has more to do with the implied responsibility of an item. Each item has different levels of responsibility associated with it. Owning a house carries GREAT responsibility in terms of upkeep and continual costs. Owning a small piece of wood, however, has virtually zero overhead and zero liability.
If we factor out the “might makes right” form of ownership, then even very desirable things can carry little to no liability due to our current system of laws. For instance, a really nice TV just sits there and dishes out video. There’s no real “risk” associated with that beyond the item getting old - although this consequence is so obvious and assumed that the risk is neutralized since it’s expected behavior. A gold chain also carries very little risk.
Unfortunately, you can’t rule out the “might makes right” attitude (a la theft) 100%, so you have to make some assumptions as to the desirability of an item, how likely people will try to take it from you and how likely there are to be people that are aware of the item that are going to be likely to try to take it.
In short - “ownership” always carries some degree of liability if you want to define liability in it’s simplest terms as the potentiality of that item being taken from you.
Ownership is having to cut the lawn and fix the stuff that breaks. 
Ownership is a man-made concept used in a bad way to justify maintaining the status quo, and in a good way to maintain social stability.
Historically, ownership was no more than a matter of power and control:
Later as society developed, leaders realised they could maintain their control by a combination of bribery and negotiation:
Later, it became the status quo:
“My parents were given this land by the king, and now it’s mine.”
Then things developed:
So I “own” my house and the land it stands on. I bought it off someone who owned it - and so on back to some forgotten historical time when someone simply asserted his “ownership” of it.
So now in the 21st century, we have this ridiculous situation in which African farmers are starving whilst Americans, English, French and Dutch (and others) “own” the resources. As our European/American concept of ownership is a very legalistic one, it is no doubt difficult for the Africans (or other tribal peoples around the world) to understand why “we” “own” “their” land.
And,
If you are able to take, you have the right to own.
Yes, but only in our egos.
Property=Theft.
I don’t get it (unless you are talking about colonial property: I know well that because I was raised in a “colonial” environment).
But right now I would advocate that setting properties right is a path to development. I do not mean that there should be only one legal vision of property rights for the whole world but inventing proper property rights is a path to prosperity.
Blake,
It all depends on where you live actually. No matter where, you will still be constrained to some rules of sort and won’t have ultimate freedom to do as you wish with your property. I live within the town borders and have to abide by certain rules and ordinances, sort of the priviledge for having access to their amenities like water and sewer, curb and gutter, trash pickup, etc.
My friend however is investigating this thing called land patents, something that might be worth a glance. Looks like the intent is to protect your land as belonging to you.
Reminds me of learning Premises Liability Law for claim investigations.
Your use of “Natural Law” has me wondering what you meant by using that phrase. Seems like everyone has their own twist on it.
One definition:
From Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
One Christian definition:
And regarding your question:
An interesting take on land ownership in this speach:
I sometimes wonder whether ownership of realty isn’t just a mechanism to extract Property Taxes.
Thanks everyone. It has been interesting reading your thoughts.
Ownership seems to be some kind of a relationship between two things.
I have a son and he has a mom. I don’t think I have a problem with this kind of association.
Thr trouble stems from the usage where there is an implicit dominion in the relationship. My dominion over the property that I won, or the things that I keep under the roof of the house.
It is this hierarchy of thingness then enables on thing (me in my examples) to have dominion over other things. In the capitalist societies, it is money that seems to generate the hierarchy of dominion, but people woith more money can’t just take what I own, i have to sell it. I’m not really interested in this part of ownership.
My take on it is more one of stewardship. My relationship with my kid, for example: I don’t own him. I care for him and teach him whathe needs to care for himself. Similarly, I shoud use my land in a sustainble way.
I guess outside of human convention, I don’t think there is such a think of ownership. I wonder why, if I am right, so many folks have such an absolute sense of “MINE!” in our culture.
To paraphrase a very pleasant poverty-stricken farmer on a recent documentary:
I own this land because my forefathers did, but Coca Cola owns the water extraction rights because of a deal they struck with a government I didn’t elect. Now I can’t water my crops or wash my children.
That is the situation I was describing.
Or in the USA, stole it from the native peoples, by genociding them.
Is genocide a verb?
I wish it weren’t, but people just won’t stop doing it.
People won’t stop suiciding either, but that doesn’t affect so many.
Nothing has changed since prehistoric times, in that the ultimate back-up of ownership is the threat of violence from other beings, human or otherwise. There’s no “natural ownership” based on a person’s demonstrated or potential sense of responsibility.
Although Blake’s son is lucky that she is a responsible mom, other parents are not so responsible. Children are not “given” to their parents as a symbol of their good favor in the eyes of the god(s) for being responsible (this does occur sometimes in the case of adoption). However, expressing love in terms of responsibility (I love, therefore I…[insert your favorite self-congratulatory responsible act or habit here]) is a valid, though insufficient, thing to do.
Similarly, ownership of land or other things is not always a reward of responsibility. Inheritance is an example that proves that; inheritance is an action of law that is blind to responsibility.
Modern land/house ownership, in most practical cases, is merely advanced renting. In most cases, the bank owns the property and the so-called owner pays the bank periodically with the threat of losing (ahem) ownership if payments don’t come in on time. Like Bruce said, there are many local, state, and even federal laws that “determine” the act of “ownership” such that a home owner can be seen as one who, by virtue of long practice, and elaborate self-deception, has learned to dance a complex sacrificial dance, where the offering is one’s life to the state. Why else would a “natural” man (or woman), supposedly loving freedom, find him or herself in such a prison of time and chores and expectations? By observing natural animals, one can easily surmise that true natural man, no closer to violence and primitive behavior than we are, suffered due to nature, it is true, but also had plenty of time for lazing in the sun, mating, and playing with the cubs. He would laugh out loud at the notion that, should he stake his claim with a shout to the gods, or by giving an antelope haunch to the hairy guy two valleys down, that his camp would be his from then on, into perpetuity, without the need for defending it, should he want to.
I saw the water extraction rights thing first hand in Owens Valley, California, when I was flown out with an illness to hospital from the southern Sierra. Owens Valley is a bare wasteland where once orange groves flourished. Guess where the water goes? Many miles away, through the mountains and desert no less, to Los Angeles, where a month earlier I sat, nursing an over-used knee, in front of an elaborate, computer-controlled, water jet fountain. Do you think the Owens Valley farmers objected to the takeover? At gunpoint, yes, they did.
Similarly, in New London, CT, where I have lived and worked, the city took land owners’ homes and property (sometimes through long and protracted legal battles - the owners did not want to sell), essentially to offer the area for use by a private corporation - Pfizer. Not only did the owners lose their homes, but also (since at least one also owned rental property) future profit from the use or sale of that land after it had gained value.
There is no such thing as ownership. Give me all of your stuff and you’ll be much less confused.
Your PO box number?
I’ve been a home “owner” for many years and it has always been a nagging thorn in my side that I’ve always realized that said “ownership” is a fairly nebulous term granted to me through the good graces of the bank and the government. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, if you miss a payment, the bank says, “mine” and takes your home away. With out reimbursement of the monies you’ve already given them. You can eventually climb out from under this shadow when you’ve paid your loan in full. Some time ago, the State of Arizona even enacted a homestead law wherein a home owner who has paid for his house, in full, can file certain paperwork with the state that protects his home from any claims by creditors. If you don’t do this, and you amass debt that you can’t pay, your creditors can slap a lien on your home and actually force you to sell it to pay your debts. Once again, ownership is thwarted. Finally, no matter what, the government “owns” your property (unless some other government is strong enough to invade your country and can then claim rights to all the property). If I ever failed to pay my property taxes, the government can sieze my property and sell it for back taxes. Ownership is more of a concept than a reality. In some societies ownership is asserted through strength, in some societies it’s political power and in some (like modern, western society) it’s asserted with money.
Sounds like you were thinking of the “new” hassles that confronted you when you went from rent/leasing to owning of the place you live.
When you rent your housing, you pay money every month that you never get back. When you own your housing, you pay money every month that becomes “equity.” In a way, you’re paying yourself. Think of that in relation to paying rent.
In reality of course you’re paying the bank, who technically owns the property until you’re done paying for it.
Billy brought up the great American example of how we “genocided” most of the land in our country from the native peoples. Genocide is evil, but we also lied, cheated and basically backstabbed the ones that didn’t get genocided. How can it be “ours” now? Two reasons, neither of which is necessarily right.
Owning is better than renting, if it’s for anything long-term.
I won’t dare quoting much more recent examples because I do not want to start heated arguments on this forum 
Property is theft
Not quite true. The Native peoples became hip to the fact that they owned the land shortly upon Whiteman’s arrival, and prosecuted land thefts with discussions, treaties and attacks.
It seemed there is just no reasoning with Whiteman, and their racist attitudes.
Ownership is a mythical capitolist concept, different from the more accurate Native concept that we are just taking care of the land for a little while–I forget their word for this.
Note: “the arriving Europeans seemed oblivious to the rhythms and spirit of nature. Nature to the Europeans - and the Indians detected this - was something of an obstacle, even an enemy. It was also a commodity: A forest was so many board feet of timber, a beaver colony so many pelts, a herd of buffalo so many robes and tongues. It was the Europeans’ cultural arrogance, coupled with their materialistic view of the land and its animal and plant beings, that the Indians found repellent. Europeans, in sum, were regarded as something mechanical - soulless creatures who wielded diabolically ingenious tools and weapons to accomplish mad ends.” [http://www.nativeamericans.com/ ]