What does it mean to "own" something?

>>8679991
When I kill you when you try to take it.

When the majority of the people who could take it from you say it is, the biggest one being the governement.

>>8680008
>>8680009
Wrong, its my property regardless, as everything is my property

>>8680009
Do you really believe that?

File: TWPoet.jpg (41KB, 570x484px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 570x484px

When it amounts to the exploitation of other classes. One day you will understand.

>>8679991
probably when it stops screaming.

>>8679991
when another respects/acknowledges said ownership
ownership is social, an isolated individual owns nothing

>>8680020
If I have an apple, it is only mine until someone takes it. I may try to get it back, but possession is purely physical. This is not to say that taking what someone else currently possesses without their knowledge or permission is morally justified, unless by possession of the possessed item the well-being of others is threatened.

>>8680009
The government might tell you that you own your house if the mortgage is paid off. But they will take it from you if you fail to pay property taxes. Does anyone who 'owns' their house as long as they continue to pay the government not to take it from them really own their house?

>>8680018
Cool, then take it.

>>8680031
Nope. As long as states exist, private property is not possible.

>>8679991
When the state (the people) agree that you own it.

>>8680037
>(the people)
Some people. Nice try.

>>8680043
Some people elected to represent all people. Therefore it is the will of "the people" of the country, only in theory of course.
At least that's how it is supposed to work in democracies.

In an anarchical system, it would be yours as long as you can take and defend it.
In a communist socialist system there is no private property at all, everything is owned by everyone (theoretically again of course).

>>8680063
>Some people elected to represent all people
Elected by some people. Almost always less than 50% of "the people".

>>8680073
They are still supposed to represent the interests of all people even if elected by a minority. Hence Hillary got in trouble for talking shit about a minority of the population in her Basket of Deplorable remarks.

>Almost always less than 50% of "the people".
Which is a weakness of the american system, though lessened by the Congress. Other democracies usually have many different parties that can go into coalitions so as many people as possible are represented in the leading government. Also some states allow direct democracy in form of referendums like the Brexit vote in Britain.

But yes the democratic system always has this problem to a greater or lesser degree. Someone said it is the most fair compromise we currently have available.

>>8679991
>When does something become your property and you "own" it?

There is no strict answer. It all depends on context.

The legal definition is too obvious to require explanation, and the 'social' definition may or may not include respect for the law. Something can be my own simply because I think of it that way, and thinking of it in such a way influences my behavior—even in the sense of experiencing it as mine without a practical component.

Possession is obviously the intent of ownership, but it is not itself a description of it. Think of the two as theory (ownership, property) and practice (possession).

>>8680124
>The legal definition is too obvious to require explanation
what is the legal definition? just owning the title to something?

>>8679991
when you can impose your will on it and prevent others from doing the same

>>8680129

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant 'legal definition' in the abstract sense: ownership as a legal concept. I did not intent a specific reference. Ownership in the legal sense is whatever a specific body of laws elaborates under that word. It is always obvious because always elaborated. Custom would be a different matter, approximating a grey area between law and common understanding (the 'social' definition).

The point I'm trying to make is that questions like these cannot be answered until context is given and definitions (the space and limitations of context) are agreed upon. After that, the answer should be an easy thing. Broad questions cannot be answered. They can only be narrowed.

>>8679991
I would own her ginger ass.

>>8679991
when I jizz on it

File: my property.jpg (642KB, 2138x2148px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 2138x2148px

>>8679991
You are confusing ownership and property. Everything is my property.

File: 1473960307635.jpg (55KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 720x720px

To "own" something is having dominance over the other. For example, due to the human male's superiority to the female sex in essence the male "owns" the female.

>>8680094
Read something that isn't a novel or poetry, cunt.

File: Spooky Skeleton.png (9KB, 170x294px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 170x294px

I am more worried about the fact that the skeltons are going to disappear soon than these silly philosophical questions of yours.

I don't want the skeletons to go.

>>8680338
Either make an actual point about what a said or go fuck yourself.

>>8679991
Ownership is a legal distinction, based upon the laws and policies of the state. Without those institutions, it's just possession.

As it's a question of law, it's not productive to speak in these general abstractions. The law is fact-specific.

>>8680614
Lame, tell us what the state's definition of ownership should be you dodging dingus

>>8679991
this makes me want to go get Wendy's