> "ownership" is a social contract. It's yours until someone else thinks it is worth their trouble to take it.
> So there is no such thing as "really" owning something, it is only yours if sufficiently other people agree that it is possible to own and that you are that owner.
This argument seems to have some trouble with the concept of theft.
> This argument seems to have some trouble with the concept of theft.
Quite the contrary. If people gang up on you and take your things there may be nothing you can do about it.
Some of your possessions have a “finders keepers” status. You drop a 20 on the floor, too bad.
Some things are worth it socially to protect (house titles and their transfer are elaborate to make them hard, though sadly not impossible, to steal).
Banks get a special level of protection from the authorities but they have to take various steps to reduce risk themselves. It’s worth it because of robbing banks were easy a lot of other things would stop working.
While “society” has decided that fighting bike thefts isn’t generally worth the cost.
(Just used these two as examples)
Theft and ownership are social constructs. A statute of limitations doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t necessarily committed, just that it no longer meets the cost/benefit threshold.
> So there is no such thing as "really" owning something, it is only yours if sufficiently other people agree that it is possible to own and that you are that owner.
This argument seems to have some trouble with the concept of theft.