To me, property is a result of social interaction, not of science or physical laws.

There is something called Social sciences which have three types. I would probably belong to the positivists.

I think this distinction you’re making (which I think is a false dichotomy) fails to acknowledge that to objective reality everything is just matter and energy in various forms, including humans. We’re objectively just objects interacting with other objects just like everything else in the universe. The fact that we’re self aware and have volition arises from our properties just as the color and smell of a flower are its properties.

Something like “the right as agreed upon to change an object (be it in place / form / appearance)” would suit I suppose.

So to own would be to “have a right as agreed upon to change an object”? The problem that trips that definition however is the lack of clarity as to what a “right” actually is which is something everybody loves to refer to and almost nobody ever tries to actually define. I’ve come to think that rights don’t actually exist. They’re just entitlements, beliefs of belonging, just a consequence of something more fundamental which would be the moral classification of acts as morally right or morally wrong.

You can’t really have a right. You can only do right acts or wrong acts whereas we might sometimes say that right acts are acts which you’re right to do or have a right to do.

So that definition could be rephrased as: “to own is to change an object rightfully”. To steal would then be, for example, “to change an object wrongfully”. It might seem like playing semantics, but it helps to reveal one thing. “To change an object” translates to “actions upon an object that modify it” and “control” is actually just a stream of actions upon an object being controlled. So we are talking about control, right? To own is to control?

In your opinion, if a meteor collides on earth, because the meteor caused the form of the earth to exist, that meteor would own the earth. To me that doesn’t work, and that’s what you get when defining a social phenomenon by means of science.

Not true at all. I actually pointed this out in the article. The nature of an object as what it is contains limitations to its capacity to control and thus its capacity to own. In case of an asteroid hitting Earth its capacity to control doesn’t extend much farther from simply remaining in one piece and colliding with other things. Nothing else is in its scope of control and thus its scope of ownership. Furthermore, once collided with Earth the meteor is no longer what it was. It’s nature has changed. It became a part of Earth itself.

And don’t get me started on who fell on whom.. It might have as well be said that the Earth fell on the meteor.

But the bottom line is that the nature of objects matters and it poses natural limitations to the extent to which it can own other things. This is why a flower can’t own a human being, but a human being can own a flower. It’s a simple difference in natures and natural capabilities.

Do you mean property cannot be shared, that means, you and I cannot share ownership of something?

To me that seems flawed.

More like, it doesn’t correspond to what most people are duped to believe without checking their assumptions.

Even while true we cannot both have exclusive rights at the same time, sharing ownership is a natural and accepted phenomenon in society – which a theory about property should account for.

What phenomenon? The governments saying something is doesn’t make it so. The law isn’t the basis of reality. In fact a lot of the times reality isn’t even the basis of the law, even though it should be.

Same goes for what the majority of people think it is. Majorities don’t make the truth into what it is. Truth is regardless of what they say. There is a simple logical contradiction in saying that ownership, defined as exclusive control, can be exercised by two people at the same time over the same object. You said it yourself: “Even while true we cannot both have exclusive rights at the same time”. And then you contradicted that. Exclusiveness and inclusiveness (which is what “shared” implies) are opposites.

So not only does the concept of shared ownership contradict simple facts of physical reality such as that multiple persons cannot occupy the same point in space and time simultaneously but it self-destructs logically before you even begin to check it with empirical reality.

That’s a result of the neutral third party you were asking for!

If the observer is you a spectator is redundant, especially if it’s you who speak through “him”. I think you misunderstood me. I never spoke of a neutral third party, but rather of not basing the definition and proof of property on humans alone, but on something more fundamental like objects (forms of matter and energy), causality, time and space..

So what I basically have a problem with, is with talking about property as being some “physical phenomenon” while disregarding any agreements which might have been made. To me, property doesn’t exist without agreement.

That was precisely my intention, to remove the concept of ownership from dependence on whim and agreement. If it can be derived from objective reality then it becomes, as it is anyway, the final arbiter.
The thing is, if I actually can observe ownership in objective reality that means it exists and that you’re subject to the laws it implies whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

And I already illustrated how could this failure to acknowledge reality backfire when I pointed out that when you base ownership on agreement alone lack of agreement means perpetual conflict. That’s after all what always happens when you’re in conflict with reality: imbalance, disharmony and eventual destruction. As you know from evolution, adaptation to reality is the key to survival and prosperity, not a conflict with it.

Even when two objects interact and cause the form of one of them to change (the moon changes the form of the ocean), speaking about ownership (therefore the moon must own the ocean) sounds flawed, and meaningless.

Same for a nucleus and an electron: The nucleus causes the orbit of the electron (and probably has some exclusive rights to it too), but does that mean some nucleus owns some electron? That sounds like meaningless propositions to me.

I already addressed that above with your meteor example.

I think you’re trying to define some social phenomenon by means of physical definitions, and that’s something that cannot work – unless property only involves ‘matter’. I’d say property is a non-material “agreement”, because an agreement – most of the times – cannot be touched, is non-material. So while we don’t agree, I feel the reason why is becoming clearer to me, so at least I learned something

Human beings (which are involved in “social”) are physical so I don’t see how looking for physical definitions somehow contradicts “social phenomenon”.

Property does involve matter because that’s the only thing that exists. Matter and energy. Einsteins equation equates the two. You don’t believe consciousness is material, but I’d be willing to bet that you have no alternative explanation for it other than vague mysticism. I don’t see how consciousness can be anything other than fundamentally material, like everything else in the universe. To say something isn’t of matter and energy is like saying it doesn’t exist in the universe at all.

Anyway, glad you got at least something out of this..

Thanks for the comments

To me, property is a result of social interaction, not of science or physical laws.

If there is agreement and someone “owns” something what does that mean?
Something like “the right as agreed upon to change an object (be it in place / form / appearance)” would suit I suppose.

In your opinion, if a meteor collides on earth, because the meteor caused the form of the earth to exist, that meteor would own the earth. To me that doesn’t work, and that’s what you get when defining a social phenomenon by means of science.

The fact that it’s “exclusive” excludes other people.

Do you mean property cannot be shared, that means, you and I cannot share ownership of something? To me that seems flawed. Even while true we cannot both have exclusive rights at the same time, sharing ownership is a natural and accepted phenomenon in society – which a theory about property should account for.

Also, if the spectator is neither the judge nor interested in the ball or Mars his opinion doesn’t matter at all to the case.

That’s a result of the neutral third party you were asking for!

So what I basically have a problem with, is with talking about property as being some “physical phenomenon” while disregarding any agreements which might have been made. To me, property doesn’t exist without agreement. Even when two objects interact and cause the form of one of them to change (the moon changes the form of the ocean), speaking about ownership (therefore the moon must own the ocean) sounds flawed, and meaningless.

Same for a nucleus and an electron: The nucleus causes the orbit of the electron (and probably has some exclusive rights to it too), but does that mean some nucleus owns some electron? That sounds like meaningless propositions to me.

Your concept is basically “whatever them two say is owned must be owned”. But you or your spectator don’t seem to try to answer that question by him/your self.

The spectator can’t and doesn’t has to answer that question by himself, because as I said before talking about ownership without talking about some agreement is meaningless to me.

So back to the first question:

If not scientifically (which I assume is what you mean by “matter and formulae” how else do you think it’s possible to explain some things?

I think you’re trying to define some social phenomenon by means of physical definitions, and that’s something that cannot work – unless property only involves ‘matter’. I’d say property is a non-material “agreement”, because an agreement – most of the times – cannot be touched, is non-material. So while we don’t agree, I feel the reason why is becoming clearer to me, so at least I learned something

Best regards, H

Basically, you’re trying to postulate some scientific definition of ‘property’. I think that’s not necessary, and not natural, because let’s not forget we’re humans after all. Like I stated in ‘the other forum’ (you know which), I don’t believe everything can be expressed by means of matter and formulae.

I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean here, in two ways.

1. I don’t see how being human can mean it’s not natural to postulate a scientific definition of property.

2. If not scientifically (which I assume is what you mean by “matter and formulae” how else do you think it’s possible to explain some things? Or do you mean that some things simply do not have a possible explanation? If so, why not?

Property and ownership only occur whenever there is an agreement between two or more involved parties.

Well agreement or lack thereof makes or breaks everything in human relationships. It almost goes without saying. If two people agree that the sky is made of glass the two of them wont be in conflict even if they are essentially in conflict with reality. In that case I don’t necessarily have to budge from my ideas on ownership above if I can get anyone to agree with me on the same definition.

The problem comes when we just can’t agree. When an agreement between two people alone is impossible a third party is necessary, a third party which actually does not have any interest in the object in question. On what basis then would a third party judge who is the rightful owner? On his whim alone? I think this is where objective scientific definition I’m trying for would have to make its entrance.

As stated, I’m not a big fan of abstract definitions (those take much concentration and energy to understand and I’m a bit tired most of the time),

Unfortunately, that’s a problem. If you don’t have a definition it’s hard to know what precisely do you even mean by “own”. If there is agreement and someone “owns” something what does that mean? What does it mean to “own”?

The only thing I could discern from your examples is that the existence of ownership depends on agreement, and that who owns something depends on what they agreed to. I can’t quite extract what does it actually mean to “own” from them however.

Let’s look at two robots and a ball. If the two robots agree the first one owns the ball, then probably every spectator would agree the first one owns the ball. Let’s say the robots don’t agree, and keep fighting, and we ask the spectator who owns the ball. I suppose they’d say that currently “no one owns the ball”.

Let’s look at two civilizations of ’space invaders’. If they agree Mars is property of the first civilization, then that civilization owns Mars. If they disagree, probably there will be a fight and neither one of them will own it.

In addition to what I said above the problem here is that they keep fighting. Saying “no one owns the ball/Mars” didn’t solve the conflict.

Also, if the spectator is neither the judge nor interested in the ball or Mars his opinion doesn’t matter at all to the case. So I’d assume that by referring to a spectator you’re referring to yourself. Spectator’s judgment is your judgment.

Let’s look at the ocean. It used to be owned by nobody. However, nowadays there seems to be an agreement between countries (basically a bunch of organized people) that some country ‘owns’ a certain part of the ocean, or Antarctica for that part. If they agree, I’d say that part is property of a certain country.

A country, regardless of the fact that it is a bunch of organized people, cannot own anything, at least if you would agree that ownership implies exclusive control over something. The fact that it’s “exclusive” excludes other people. Only a single individual can be the true owner, not a group of millions. Of course, like I said before, you didn’t define what it actually means to “own”.

Let’s look at copyright. If all people on the world would agree someone has exclusive right to a certain ‘configuration of chars’, to the spectator it would look like that ‘configuration of chars’ was owned by the author. No matter if that ‘configuration of chars’ was physical or not (it could be just in the head of the author, and like said before, I don’t believe consciousness can be explained in terms of matter).

If however not all people on the world would agree someone has exclusive right, than it’s basically the same as with the fighting civilizations or dogs: The spectator would probably decide currently no one is owning that particular ‘configuration of chars’.

Let’s look at an “anarchistic” society where people don’t believe in property. Because all people agreed all matter cannot be property, an outside spectator would probably say, “In this society property doesn’t exist”.

Let’s look at two people, and they both agreed the second person owns the first. Ask to an alien (someone without ‘human moral’ and who have not read the law), and he’d probably tell you the first person is property of the second.

Again, I would assume the spectator is actually yourself, but regardless it’s just a statement of his/your opinion which requires some basis before it can become a fact which cannot be established without establishing precisely what “own” means first.

This spectator, or yourself, is almost like someone who can’t make up his mind about what he actually thinks about ownership and thus relegates the entire job to the people dealing with the necessity to answer that question. You probably wont be surprised if I say that’s just not good enough.

I don’t know if it’s of any help, but speaking for my own I quite like the concept above since it almost seems to provide a coherent idea of property, at least for me.

Of course it is.

I don’t mean to be rude, but I want to explain why I think it’s coherent and why I still think it’s bad.

It’s like a person who says that he has a coherent method of knowing everything that is known about the universe and his method is: “I just listen what other people say about it and make their conclusions my own.”

Your concept is basically “whatever them two say is owned must be owned”. But you or your spectator don’t seem to try to answer that question by him/your self. See what I mean?

Best regards.

I’m sorry, that was supposed to read: Let me try using examples.

I like your exploration of the properties of property, but I don’t agree, and I like to share my opinion.

Basically, you’re trying to postulate some scientific definition of ‘property’. I think that’s not necessary, and not natural, because let’s not forget we’re humans after all. Like I stated in ‘the other forum’ (you know which), I don’t believe everything can be expressed by means of matter and formulae.

So what I basically concluded was this:

Property and ownership only occur whenever there is an agreement between two or more involved parties.

As stated, I’m not a big fan of abstract definitions (those take much concentration and energy to understand and I’m a bit tired most of the time), so let me try to explain using some definition. Nonetheless, I’ll try to take the idea of property “beyond humans only” as you wish (I think that’s a nice idea).

Let’s look at two robots and a ball. If the two robots agree the first one owns the ball, then probably every spectator would agree the first one owns the ball. Let’s say the robots don’t agree, and keep fighting, and we ask the spectator who owns the ball. I suppose they’d say that currently “no one owns the ball”.

Let’s look at two dogs and a rope, something I did in practice because my parents have two dogs. If the two dogs agree the first one owns the rope, than the rope is property of the first. Suppose they fight, and after the fight they ‘agree’ the rope is property of the second dog. Then it is, also to the spectator I guess.

Let’s look at two civilizations of ‘space invaders’. If they agree Mars is property of the first civilization, then that civilization owns Mars. If they disagree, probably there will be a fight and neither one of them will own it.

Let’s look at the ocean. It used to be owned by nobody. However, nowadays there seems to be an agreement between countries (basically a bunch of organized people) that some country ‘owns’ a certain part of the ocean, or Antarctica for that part. If they agree, I’d say that part is property of a certain country.

Let’s look at copyright. If all people on the world would agree someone has exclusive right to a certain ‘configuration of chars’, to the spectator it would look like that ‘configuration of chars’ was owned by the author. No matter if that ‘configuration of chars’ was physical or not (it could be just in the head of the author, and like said before, I don’t believe consciousness can be explained in terms of matter).

If however not all people on the world would agree someone has exclusive right, than it’s basically the same as with the fighting civilizations or dogs: The spectator would probably decide currently no one is owning that particular ‘configuration of chars’.

Let’s look at an “anarchistic” society where people don’t believe in property. Because all people agreed all matter cannot be property, an outside spectator would probably say, “In this society property doesn’t exist”.

Let’s look at two people, and they both agreed the second person owns the first. Ask to an alien (someone without ‘human moral’ and who have not read the law), and he’d probably tell you the first person is property of the second.

I don’t know if it’s of any help, but speaking for my own I quite like the concept above since it almost seems to provide a coherent idea of property, at least for me.

Wish you best, H