On Ownership

 

It’s perhaps time now that we need a new definition for ownership. We can go all the way back to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes on this topic. In fact, let’s just take a quick look at the debate: Locke (really, should be called a founding father of America) felt that, because of our abundances, we need to do a better job of sharing. Part of his ethics were primarily about keeping what we own from predators, thieves, wars and the like. This was important for having a good life, which is part of every philosophy.  Simply put, we should feel good about what we earn and work for and not have to worry about it being taken away.

            Then, there was Hobbes, and in his work, “The Leviathan” he goes on to explain that the state of nature is one given to the wild, anarchic. There really is no order except in our attempt to employ it, which is always futile. Property, thus, would only be relegated to those who have immediate possession of it. Hobbes certainly was “nine/tenths” guy. He also argued that, in the true state of nature, we are at constant odds with each other because there simply isn’t enough to go around. Supply and demand are products of survival, nothing more, nothing less.

            Both thinkers form very good arguments and, hence, we must come back to this idea of ownership. Of course, these philosophers were writing before Karl Marx, who in many ways, had the final say about ownership when he declared, in bold, “There will be no private property” (Communist Manifesto). In his ideal society, or utopia, Marx claimed that if nobody owned anything, then there wouldn’t be this struggle or need for it. We could simply live on loan and borrow maxims that many of our youth depend on today.

            It’s a plausible idea, and many know that; but just think about some examples. Do we really own movies anymore? It seems like Netflix and the rest of the bunch are simply in the business of loaning us stuff. Basically, once the payments stop, there’s no more access to the content. This could be said about all streaming services. Video games are also headed in this direction. There are now gaming systems that rely on no hardware whatsoever. These are just some observations. Perhaps then, the much anticipated digital age is nothing more than a spin off of vulgar Marxism. Should we talk about property, literally, like land? That also might be no longer “for sale”.

            Finally, we come to where we actually stand. On the ground, in the state, part of the country, which is on the planet. What defines a country? Isn’t it the people who live there? Or is all the land on earth owned by the entire human species? Most of it comes down to who claimed it first, correct? Yet, did those people have a right to that claim? They did, some argue, if they fought for it. So, who owns Greenland? There have never been any wars there. It’d have to be the Vikings, but they no longer exist. What about the good ol’ U.S. of A.? Some claim the land was stolen. Perhaps Hobbes was right after all. Do we know who owns the moon? Not sure multiculturalism is going to bail us out of that one. The more perspectives, the more nuanced the context gets. This doesn't lead us to the truth! The properties of ownership, much like anything else, fall under the natural rights of man. Well, of course, depending on what land he is in.