No. There are already plenty of laws that determine what you can and can't do with what is owned, depending on what that thing is.

Neither ought we have the entitlement depending on external costs to others. We own nothing in perpetuity, so to destroy something that might have many generations of utility (like a sustainable output of land) is wrong.

But the devil is in the details concerning what we ought to be allowed to do with what things.

Does private ownership entitle one to do whatever one wants to what is owned? — Mikie

Far far too broad a question. If I wear a ring and decide I don't like it I can throw it into a garbage dump and forget about it. If I own a car I cannot legally drive down an interstate highway in the south lane going north.

Narrow down the discussion and it might become interesting. Not so, now.

Okay. What about land?

If you through away that ring, there’s still consequences for the world. It’s polluting— ends up in a landfill if in the trash, maybe eaten by an animal if in the woods.

The question is a throw-away one and indeed very broad. I guess I’m getting at the very idea of ownership in the first place. What we do in private, with our private property, still has effects on the world at large— and I think this is often forgotten.

What about land? — Mikie

I think it’s important to distinguish between personal possessions and ownership for profit. Everyone should have their own private, spacious shelter, but private ownership of land and buildings to generate rent, or profits from sale, is something else. The latter shouldn’t be possible, the former should be guaranteed for everyone.

EDIT: When Proudhon said that property is theft, he wasn’t talking about your toothbrush.

I think it’s important to distinguish between personal possessions and ownership for profit. — Jamal

An important distinction. Still: even personal possessions and what one does with them— even, in fact, one’s body — has an effect on the world at large, even if a minor effect.

A part of me wants to say the idea of owning anything is a bit of an illusion. But we don’t have to go that far to admit that things are connected, and so actions taken with one’s possessions are also connected to everything else.

As an example: the guy who wants to drink all day long. Not getting behind the wheel — minds his own business. Seems to me he should be free to do so — he’s harming no one but himself. But lately I think that’s somewhat wrong. The guys healthcare costs has societal effects and so on.

I have trouble determining where to draw the line between personal freedom and social responsibility, I guess. Ownership is one particular aspect that gets caught in this context.

Then I think there are two ways to look at ownership.

The more general way you seem to want to go is a question about any kind of society, because people will always have personal possessions and at the same time live with other people.

The other way is to look at the distinction I made between personal possessions and private property in the kind of societies we now have. It’s only in capitalist ideology that these are conflated, as if ownership of land and capital is just another form of personal possession.

For the first, more general question, anthropology might shed some light on it. What about this: do what you want with your own stuff (and here this only includes stuff you’re using for yourself) so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

@NOS4A2

Would be interested in NOS's response to the OP. :naughty:

What about this: do what you want with your own stuff (and here this only includes stuff you’re using for yourself) so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. — Jamal

The problem, which I think Mikie eludes to, is that even the simple act of tossing a plastic straw in the trash may contribute to a negative result for others.

Where I live, society entitles me to do a lot of messed up shit with things I may own. I’m responsible for all of it.

The problem, which I think Mikie eludes to, is that even the simple act of tossing a plastic straw in the trash may contribute to a negative result for others. — praxis

Exactly.

Not an original thought, of course, but one I’ve never taken too seriously until now.

It’s only in capitalist ideology that these are conflated, as if ownership of land and capital is just another form of personal possession. — Jamal

I agree with this wholeheartedly, of course. My comment is indeed much more general.

Where I live, society entitles me to do a lot of messed up shit with things I may own. I’m responsible for all of it. — praxis

Tire dust is supposedly an environmental/health catastrophe that no one ever mentions. No one is responsible for tire dust.

No one is responsible for tire dust. — Nils Loc

I’m responsible for the tire dust that my tires and I produce. :worry:

Right. Not sure why this isn’t obvious.

No one is responsible for tire dust. — Nils Loc


I’m responsible for the tire dust that my tires and I produce. — praxis

Well we've encountered the obvious implicit yet again: the problem of a diffusion of responsibility and its relationship to the tragedy of commons.

Thoughts and prayers :pray: for a livable future.

As an example: the guy who wants to drink all day long. Not getting behind the wheel — minds his own business. Seems to me he should be free to do so — he’s harming no one but himself. But lately I think that’s somewhat wrong. The guys healthcare costs has societal effects and so on.

I have trouble determining where to draw the line between personal freedom and social responsibility, I guess. Ownership is one particular aspect that gets caught in this context. — Mikie

Interesting. I once had a chat to a surgeon friend who said that he was getting sick of spending hours operating on people who had lung cancer from smoking. Why waste his valuable time and the hospital's resources on people who don't take care of themselves? This strikes me as an authoritarian or 'right wing' formulation of responsibility and consequences. But I understand it.

The inference that the cancer was caused by smoking may not be correct either. I have lost two friends from lung cancer who never smoked. People get lung cancer.

Does private ownership entitle one to do whatever one wants to what is owned? — Mikie

I can't answer this. But suppose a billionaire purchases original and important works of art and important pieces of ancient craft just to incinerate them. Can this then be seen as a broader harm? There's the vexed question too of what do we count as ownership? Does a white Australian guy actually own Australian land just because he paid for it? Does he own the twenty thousand year-old cave paintings on his ranch?

Heritage protection laws around the world obviously say that ownership doesn't provide the right to do whatever you want with a heritage building or a cultural artifact.

Il est facile de voir que ... we can't.

A part of me wants to say the idea of owning anything is a bit of an illusion. — Mikie

Ownership is an agreement between humans that in part makes our society work. But of course you can teach for example your pet that what's yours it has to leave alone. And animals are territorial, so it's just not something related to us humans. When humans and animals share something in common, it's likely not an illusion. Of course, is this "ownership" is another question.