Can I have property without anyone else acknowledging that it belongs to me?
I was just wondering if can be the case that I can own something without anyone other than myself claiming that I own it. I was thinking about colonial empires and the need for other nations to acknowledge their claims and boundaries over specific areas of lands. However at times this acknowledge meant did not come until months after the initial nation had proclaimed the land to be theirs. In those circumstances did the land still belong to them although no one was there to validate their claim? Is that necessary? Understandably in the case that I bring up some recognition is required in order for disputes over boundaries not to occur, but does it work the same way in regards to more general objects? When does one begin owning something?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A fun question. If my property falls in the forest and there's no one around, is it still mine?
ReplyDeleteLocke says it's yours from the first gesture of acquisition (the acorn/digestion image). Your right, in this sense, does not demand the recognition of others (though its enforcement surely will).
If we accept something like a Lockean, rights-based model (and as we're seeing with the utilitarians, the alternatives may not be very attractive), it seems to be the case that your ownership, though it does not need your neighbors' acknowledgment, does need some sort of institutional support, at least if it is to be very secure. The difference here is between individual, personal respect, which you can live without from at least a few people, and a sort of collective, structural concern for dignity.
As far as owning material things goes, I have to agree with Locke; you don't necessarily need someone around to say, "Yeah, that's yours," whenever you claim ownership of something. As long as you're not blatantly stealing something, then I think if you claim ownership of something it belongs to you from the instant you claim it. If someone contests your ownership of the property, then, yes, legal issues would arise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Locke but only so far as where food is concerned because when you own food - that is, pick it up and eat it - your ownership of it is pretty darn secure the moment you digest it. However, everything else is not as secure as that. I find that the beginning of ownership of something material is fuzzy here. I can claim that I own a book but is it really ownership in the sense that it belongs to me for a duration of time?
ReplyDeleteI see ownership as being a certain lengthy period of time where something belongs to me and I have attached some significant meaning to it. My ability to attach meaning may not happen as quickly for a book as it would for food - mostly because hunger motivates me to want the food more than my intellectual curiosity (though not always ^_^). Therefore, I think ownership truly begins when I attribute meaning to something, but not necessarily as soon as I pick it up.
I am not sure that I place significant meaning on all the things that I own. Although it maybe that I am not completely clear on what you mean Erica. I think somethings are necessities which like you said it becomes easy to place a kind of meaning or maybe value but I am not entire certain of how placing a kind of value initiates an idea of ownership. It may be the case that I am using the words value and meaning synonymously when I should not be.
ReplyDeleteThis made me think of an Eddie Izzard joke, check it out:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
Ya I know while I was thinking about all of this I went back to watch that Eddie Izzard bit :)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that ownership of an object really matters if no one acknowledges it. I think that we must possess an object before we can use it, but ownership seems to be more of an aspect of property, not possession in the strictest sense of the word. As previously mentioned, our right to possess an object only comes into question when another person (or creature) comes into the scenario.
ReplyDeleteis "private" property (in the sense that only you know about it) just a matter of semantics? why would you have to claim it as property if no one else knew about it? or do more people know about it, but you are the only one that claims it to be property?
ReplyDeleteis there such a theory based on the concept that property is owned by a community, that which is owned by everyone who knows about it, but that no one could use the property in a way that would change the attributes of the property without the consent of everyone who is aware of it?
What you describe is at least in principle the structure of the traditional commons.
ReplyDeleteAnd I like the implication that "private" property, in the radical sense of it being unknown to anyone but its owner, may be an absurd notion. In light of this reductio, it seems that even private property is always a social (if not always a governmental) institution.
ReplyDeleteHowever going back to the very first comment and to Locke once I eat an apple (acorn) regardless of whether or not anyone else has acknowledge that property it has in fact become mine. Although, I guess in that sense could it be that one might be able to make the argument that Locke has acknowledged it as being my property, and thus it would not be my property had he not first put forth the argument to make it mine?
ReplyDeleteThere are circumstances that might apply to that apple being your property once you consume it. First, that apple must be obtained without causing harm to anyone, secondly, there must be enough for everyone; in other words, a person cannot eat all the apples, or as Locke says, a person cannot take more than their “share”; this “share” being within the bounds of reason. So, as I understand it, if there are plenty of apples--then it is the removal of the apple from its natural state that makes it yours. Essentially when you pick it up. But I recall Matt positing actualized intent as the determining factor. This means if you have your eye on the apple, and your intent is to go get it, and this intent is not harming anyone, then the origin of property is in this intent. I don’t think acknowledgement is an issue in this initial stage of acquisition (as Matt, Brett and Brendon allude to) Locke states that property does indeed exist before the apple, and that property is you. And you do not need anyone else's acknowledgement to make it so.
ReplyDeleteBrendon’s idea of property owned by a community presents many difficulties. In theory it makes sense, but how does it work on a practical level? We have a piece of land in a community that is “owned by everyone who knows about it”. This means that many people from outside the community, the state, the country, who might know about this land own it in a sense. And if someone’s usage of this land might “change the attributes” of said land—we need the consent of everyone who knows about it. We see the impossibility of this in practice. Perhaps if only the direct members of the community controlled the interests of the land--with the usage open to everyone, it might work. And we want to account for, internal discord, in regard to usage, within the community.
ReplyDelete