Ownership

On the surface this seems like a simple enough concept.  When one owns something, one has ownership.  That something is a possession, it belongs to a person or entity.  If in the condition to make any sort of decisions, it is not ultimately responsible for itself, as some higher power is theoretically involved to guide or control it.  Yet, my impression is that it is not actually that simple.  We focus for the most part on the benefits of ownership, principally the fact that we are generally allowed to do whatever we want with what we own.  Sure, people may protest or make their disagreement known, but they cannot stop us from painting our cars loud colors, burning our old comics books (depending on fire regulations in the area) or smashing our old electronics.  We own those things.  They belong to us.  We are allowed to do anything, as long as we do not affect other people to any great extent.  And, therein lies the key: how we affect others determines how much we can exercise our rights as owners.  We have responsibilities as well as rights when something belongs to us, especially when those things have particularly dangerous consequences of use or misuse, such as in the case of vehicles or weapons.  I may have the right to fire the gun I own, but if a stray bullet injures somebody or damages another person's property I am responsible for that damage.  Ownership of inanimate objects is now becoming a tricky, what with all the possible charges of negligence looming, but there are still more considerations in terms of ownership.

In recent years, much has been made of intellectual property and the rights that creators have over their creation and the financial gain made from it.  This has mostly been in terms of music, but writers and artists have also had their fair share of problems and things to say on the subject.  All of these things - a song, a story, an image - can be created as digital files and stored or let loose on the internet, where they will undoubtedly be "stolen".  To some extent, these things cannot really be stolen, because making a copy of them is not preventing anyone else from having them.  However, it is true that making illegal or illicit copies deprives the creator of the financial reward for creating in the first place.  In that sense, internet pirates are stealing from the pockets of musicians and a great many people are stealing from artists who create their works on digital media.  How can we lay claim to the ownership of these digital files?  There are watermarks for photos, tricks to prevent playback of soundfiles, but do any of these measures really show the web surfer the proof of ownership?  Because these things are non-tangible, it is that much easier to simply claim that they belong to anyone who can find an access to them, legal or illegal.  We see enjoyment of an item as the purpose as consumers, and the purpose of creating wealth as secondary or non-existent.  Therefore, those artists that complain about missing out on income seem to be complaining about something that they have no right to.  The work itself has no physical properties, so it is easy to dismiss it as something "easy" to do and without effort behind it, at least effort that carries the weight of deserving recognition and reward.  What does "ownership" mean in these cases?  How can people push for their just recompense for effort expended?

Another problematic aspect of ownership is how it gets applied to living things.  In many cases, we are understanding, as gardens, plants and even pets are seen as under the dominion of a human master.  We might be understanding with non-living objects, but living beings attract much more attention and noise when they are treated in ways that are not widely accepted.  We understand that pets are "owned" but we also are not happy when they are neglected or abused.  Even farm animals, outside the realm of romanticized pet ownership, are the objects of pity and righteous fury when rescued from abusive situations.  Living things are not so easily brushed aside when we believe we are conscientious.  There are organizations, sometimes more than one, that look out for the well-being of animals, whether in a household or on a farm, and the ownership of these animals does not give the owners leave to do whatever they want with them.  When living beings are involved, the responsibilities of ownership become more obvious.  True, some prefer not to use the word "own" when it comes to the relationship between a person and a pet, or even livestock, since the animal is considered to have consciousness and a will of its own, so its dignity should be respected.  There is also some confusion regarding being responsible for other human beings and owning them.  In much of the world, slavery is no longer legal or thought of as a good or even neutral activity, but that does not prevent people from feeling a sense of ownership over others, especially children and romantic partners.  The possessiveness of these interpersonal relationships can lead people to confusion over their exact nature.  "My child", "my spouse", "my house".  Children especially can be confused with extensions of the parents, due to the physical part parents play in their creation and the dependence the children have on their progenitors for so long.  Social and cultural norms have promoted this idea to greater and lesser extents, mostly as strategies to ensure the supply of new citizens who will not demand much care from society at large, since the family unit is expected to take care of its own.  Still, the problem of ownership seems to be one of individual circumstances, which define the balancing act that must take place in order for us to enjoy our privileges and satisfy our responsibilities.

Our Doctor began by recognizing the difficulty of the concept of ownership for Spanish speakers, since the term does not exist in their language.  There is a definite difference between ownership and property, but it requires a little more reflection than many people are used to.  He rolled through recent history and cultural attitudes to private property, reminding us of the problems the quest for such things, especially ownership without the responsibilities, can cause problems for society and citizens.  There have been many attempts to correct the inequalities through redistribution of resources and also through attitude adjustments that reject private property altogether.  He later stated that ownership is a problem of morality, but also amoral.  There is no morality attached to merely holding the deed or title to an object, but there is in recognizing the validity of what that paper says.  If people are not free, they cannot be owners of anything, even their own bodies and lives.  We are not citizens even today, but subjects, and subjects of shadow leaders who we do not know.  He concluded that we need to know reality in order to be free, to be responsible and to be people, but nobody actually knows what it is.

The True Philosopher was unable to produce an article for us this time, but was present and with thoughts to share.  He acknowledged that we use the term to refer to many possessions - jewelry, dogs - but only some of those possessions require documentation.  Nobody will argue if you claim a pen as your own (unless you steal it on camera, perhaps), but land generally requires some officially recognized deed that gives you rights over it.  There may be implied ownership over living beings, but this is simply a convention of language and not genuine expression of possession in the majority of cases.  Furthermore, can we say that everything we possess is owned by us?  In the past, we required less paperwork for recognition of property rights, especially in small communities where people knew each other and each other's families for generations.  There was a natural and expected inheritance of land and property that did not require the intervention and permission of government representatives, because the community as a whole recognized the property as belonging to certain people by rights.  This was traditional in the Philippines until the Church came along and claimed the "free" property, but allowed tenant farmers to continue using it as if it were their "own".  The community might give ownership to one person, but the authorities give it to another.  This is one of the problems surrounding the concept, as it is a personal state and depends on others to give it form in reality.  Disagreements are many and can end in violence and destruction.

The Leader spent a bit of time in his writing on the accumulation of resources and the balance of that accumulation and pro-social behavior.  He continued the theme in the meeting.  For him, the owning of people could not be compared to the owning of objects or land because of the relationships we have with others, but in societies where slavery is/was common, those interpersonal relationships certainly existed but were developed only between the "right" people.  People in modern Western societies with a sense of ownership over others obviously have no respect for them.  He also mentioned the difficulties faced by those who produce non-tangible property, such as images on the internet, or services versus goods.  The stability of our modern society depends a great deal on the sense of dedication to protection of property and the expectation that we can all achieve some measure of ownership over some of it.  If we respect others' property, they will respect ours.  The more important question for the Leader was protecting the value of the property, in particular real estate, not the physical property itself, as in the case of property bubbles.  Being an owner is, or should, never be an individual endeavor as it is meaningless outside of a society and requires the support of society to continue.  As for some wonderings on why we wish to accumulate property if it carries so much responsibility, or where the urge comes from at all, he answered that the reasons were many.  We act out of sentimentality, search for security, or greed.  In the end, though, the urge to collect is natural to the human being.

The Seeker of Happiness did not agree with any connection to nature regarding the concept of ownership or property.  He flatly stated that property did not exist in nature, which is true in the sense of responsibility towards personal property.  There is a sense of territory, but not a sense of care for it beyond keeping competitors away.  While the idea of personal property can seem unfair, he said, the belief in something as one's own encourages care for it and protection from damage.  Still, there is a danger in monopolies and the corruption that they tend to encourage.  For some reason, we do not count government as a monopoly, but as a responsible provider of services, except the most libertarian or anarchistic of us.  It is also true that the power of large properties, when properly managed, confers the power to carry out large projects that would otherwise be unattainable.

Finally, an Drop-In openly admitted that he did not understand the concept of ownership, so he elected to instead regale us with an anecdote of a "girl" he knew who had acquired a number of properties in Madrid, but all she ever did was work.  It was left unclear whether we the audience were supposed to admire her acquisitive ambitions or pity her inconsequential life.  He also said that the government is a necessary overseer to make sure we assume the responsibilities of ownership (to return to topic) and keep unrest to a minimum with pie-in-the-sky promises or carrot-and-stick (mostly stick) methods of controlling the ambitions and actions of the people.  Yet, he ended with some doubt about where wealth really comes from in modern society.

Perhaps, as members of less privileged classes, we are not equipped to speak on the topic of ownership.  Few of us own anything of great wealth or possibility to speak of.