Talk:Ownership

Untitled

 * See also: Talk:Property.

Why are there no comments here?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onnojan de jong (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it the case that people realize that ownership is fictional?

Ownership like responsibility, blame, praise, guilt, obligation, rights, etc. is ascribed rather than described. Unlike descriptions, ascriptions are neither true nor false. That is, simply ascribing ownership to b doesn't establish the truth of the sentence "b owns this".

The Latin roots of ascription and description are informative: 'ad scribere', literally 'to write to', as opposed to 'de scribere', literally 'to write down from' - where what is 'written down from' is a state of affairs.

The resemblance to mystical incantation is obvious on moving from ascription to utterance, where simply saying "b owns this" supposedly establishes the truth of the sentence "b owns this".

The process of ascribing and uttering fails elsewhere: for example, simply saying "The cat is sitting on the mat" doesn't establish the truth of the sentence "The cat is sitting on the mat".

The document referred to in the following link clarifies the matter of ownership linguistically.



Ash --58.84.69.162 02:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What is ownership?

Ownership is to “owe no one”. Above all ownership means you don’t have to pay anyone else to keep what you “own”. Owner ship is the flip side of freedom and liberty. If you own your self you’re free and when you owe no one for what you have you have liberty. Ownership exists when the only obligation for what you have is to God.

Taken from the book “If we free the slaves who will pick the cotton” written by Tomas Real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.16.43 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Circular definition
The article starts off with "[o]wnership is the socially supported power to exclusively control and use for one's own purposes, that which is owned." Seems like we need a definition of "owned" here. Anyone have a nice concise way of doing this? Gwimpey 22:51, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Circular definition
The article begins with "Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive possession ..". This is still uninformative.

The state of affairs where b has twenty cents in his hand (or pocket) establishes the truth of the sentence "b has twenty cents in his hand (or pocket)". The state of affairs doesn't establish the truth of the sentence "b owns twenty cents". The relation of ownership is not observable in the state of affairs. The only observable relation in this example is that of holding.

Likewise, the state of affairs where b paid $200k and thereafter resided in the house at address establishes the truth of the sentence "b paid $200k and thereafter resided in the house at address". The state of affairs doesn't establish the truth of the sentence "b owns the house at address". The only observable relations in this example are those of paying and residing.

In the absence of a state(of affairs) or fact, I would suggest that an appropriate definition for 'ownership' is as follows: "Ownership is an ascribed or fictional relation between person(s) and object(s)".

Ash--58.84.77.227 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think to say that the relationship is "ascribed or fictional" is too much existentialist, even social constructionist in nature. You're describing the state of affairs of ownership too philosophically that you forget that ownership exists in certain social arrangements. For example, ownership can mean ownership in a capitalist society where it would be defined by the law that exists in that society. The relationship then, is not ascribed or fictional but rather, legal. In other societies with different modes of production, ownership's definition will change according to social definitions. The definition is not "fictional" if people consider the relationship to be real. If we are trying to be objective, then we must try to encompass all definitions as possible and not jump to conclusions as to the definition of a term. Moonwalkerwiz 07:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If ownership is not observable in a state of affairs, then it arises by ascription or utterance. Simply ascribing (i.e. writing to - from the Latin 'ad scribere') ownership to B doesn't establish the state of affairs where B owns this and therefore doesn't establish the truth of the sentence 'B owns this' just as simply saying "The cat is sitting on the mat" doesn't establish the state of affairs where the cat is sitting on the mat and therefore doesn't establish the truth of the sentence 'The cat is sitting on the mat'. The process is one of magical incantation i.e. saying it's so makes it so. Ash101.103.64.183 (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ownership in computer science
Anyone think we should do an article about ownership in computer science? For example, in C++, where memory is manually managed, you can transfer ownership of a pointer when you pass that pointer to a function or something. The constructor of std::auto_ptr transfers ownership of the pointer to the auto_ptr, which deletes the pointer when the auto_ptr goes out of scope. I don't feel confident enough about the subject material to write the article myself, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterPhyrePhox (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Self-propagating in intro needs rewrite
The statement "Ownership is self-propagating in that if an object is owned by someone, any additional goods produced by using that object will also be owned by the same person" is not always true. It is true in most instances, such as that the owner of a cow owns the calf, but it's not true when someone e.g. leases or borrows a machine for the production of some item. I don't know how to express it so that it's correct but not too unwieldly.Sjö (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This idea probably needs a whole section. Marx seems to agree when he suggests ownership of the means of production should be in the hands of the workers. But the very idea making 'profit' from ownership has been questioned -- rentierism was considered sinful in the past, but now forms the basis of Capitalism, Intellectual property, etc.
 * There are different elements to the concept of ownership. Under Roman law this concept (ownership of the products of something owned) was called fructus and was distinct from the right to use (usus) or destroy (abusus.) Whether, and how, self-propagation is related to ownership needs more than just one sentence. 71.105.207.249 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The temporary transfer of effective ownership as with a lease, should resolve this theoretical problem? and I have recognized that the self-propagation property ultimately entails a violation of the first law of thermodynamics (never mind the reasons it is unrelated to the relevant questions for this topic). The relevant questions I have are "when did self-propagation of ownership appear?" and "what is the justification for it?" I can find no resource that does more than describe it as a feature (bug) in the ownership definition. Is there any help here? Bjchip (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ownership as a bundle of Rights (Tony Honoré )
It has been some years, since Honoré published his paper (1961). The effects are felt in serveral cases in the British as well as the American legal system. It has been revived by Joseph L. Sax' (Playing Darts with a Rembrandt) concerning the "right to destroy", yet it is missing from here - I am not exactly fit to write about legal intricacies in a foreign laguage, but I would appreciate, if one of you better suited to the task would endeavour in it. Yotwen (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

History and Culture
I have made some structural edits that hopefully (with others' imput) will help lead to ongoing improvements/development. The changes that I have made are:

1. Introduction of a History section. This will enable the concept of Ownership to be contextualized. The section contains that part of the introduction which referred to it. Hopefully that will seed its development.

2. Moved the paragraph on philosophy from the introduction to form the introduction to the section concerning the philosophical ideas surrounding ownership.

I have also made a minor edit to allow for the inclusion of concepts of property that inculde people as this has been, and still is, a significant aspect of the development of the concept of ownership over time. Although I have done this using aa link to Slavery, this eems inadequate, as it seems to me there is a concept of property of the other in matrimony and in "primitive" and other societies. As I am researching this at the moment I am not in a position to extend the edit further.

I have made these edits on the understanding that wiki is not a proselytizing political document but one of record. However I not that the Property Law refers to the development of European concepts of property alone. If this article refers solely to the modern Western concept of property then it should be retitled to reflect this fact.

LookingGlass (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In history, problematic attribution of Adam Smith quote. Makes it seem as if property is on same level as life, and it is not. Check out the scope of the original statement. Original: Death is the greatest evil which one man can inflict upon another, and excites the highest degree of resentment in those who are immediately connected with the slain. Murder, therefore, is the most atrocious of all crimes which affect individuals only, in the sight both of mankind, and of the person who has committed it. To be deprived of that which we are possessed of, is a greater evil than to be disappointed of what we have only the expectation. Breach of property, therefore, theft and robbery, which take from us what we are possessed of, are greater crimes than breach of contract, which only disappoints us of what we expected. The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions; and last of all come those which guard what are called his personal rights, or what is due to him from the promises of others.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onnojan de jong (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ownership of a process in a coperation
"Who has ownership of process?" this question gets asked in my work environment often.

If I look at the current wikipedia page, then this kind of ownership is not mentioned up to now.

(or I am blind and/or stupid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettli (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ownership of ones own body
The section on slavery currently states:
 * The living human body is, in modern societies, considered something which cannot be the property of anyone but the person whose body it is.

Is the last part of this sentence actually true? I know that you cannot legally own anyone else, but do you actually, legally, own your own body? I know a lot of people argue philosophically that you do (or should) (and derive various moral or political arguments from that axiom), but is it actually true in law? I was under the impression that some or all legal systems don't consider you to own your body, on the grounds either that no-one can own anyone's body, and/or you are your body, rather than a separate entity that owns it. Iapetus (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ileana Ramos Mendez
Comprar vivienda y auto 172.58.245.152 (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Ownership of articles" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ownership_of_articles&redirect=no Ownership of articles] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 06:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Alternative meaning
The meaning of this word is changing in English, as companies tell employees to take "ownership" (whatever they mean by that, they tell it to me all the time), without of course implying a transfer of property. Should we reflect this in the article? 67.83.101.225 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)