interesting discussion to read. A few thoughts...

Ownership for me is a statement of rights and responsibility. I own my dog therefore the responsibility for his welfare is down to me I have the right to keep him. I own my house therefore the responsibility for its upkeep is mine, I have the right to shelter. I own my opinion therefore any offense, inaccuracy or deceit is my responsibility I have a right to an opinion.

An issue arises when 'owners' do not take responsibility and instead just focus on their 'rights or worse still conflate their wants with their 'rights''.

The 'ownership' of resources epitomises how issues can arise. Particularly when resources are monetised and access to money is arranged in such a way that it is not fairly distributed. A weird play on survival of the fittest only in this scenario fitness is measured in wealth rather then physicality.

parents think of their children as 'theirs', they claim ownership 'my son' 'my daughter'. They make decisions for them, hopefully nurture and care for them and guide them to that point in their childs lives where they become their own person and take ownership of their own lives and decisions. They will always be 'your child' though. Not someone elses but yours.

So yeah ownership is for me about the right to something and the responsibility of it. But it is also just a word to describe the act of being responsible for and having the right to something, without the word I believe we would still have the concept, without prescribed legal positions on ownership to protect those rights and enforce those responsibilities we would, I believe, still instinctively set the boundary of 'mine'

am now off to read up on nassim harramein. (love the irony of the 'mein' in surname given the thread)

Great input thor and yes, totally agree that having sole use of something is as much about responsibility as anything else. I think that's what andy was getting at with his comment on stewardship.

Can't recommend Nassim Harramein enough

interesting discussion to read. A few thoughts...

Ownership for me is a statement of rights and responsibility. I own my dog therefore the responsibility for his welfare is down to me I have the right to keep him. I own my house therefore the responsibility for its upkeep is mine, I have the right to shelter. I own my opinion therefore any offense, inaccuracy or deceit is my responsibility I have a right to an opinion.

An issue arises when 'owners' do not take responsibility and instead just focus on their 'rights or worse still conflate their wants with their 'rights''.

The 'ownership' of resources epitomises how issues can arise. Particularly when resources are monetised and access to money is arranged in such a way that it is not fairly distributed. A weird play on survival of the fittest only in this scenario fitness is measured in wealth rather then physicality.

parents think of their children as 'theirs', they claim ownership 'my son' 'my daughter'. They make decisions for them, hopefully nurture and care for them and guide them to that point in their childs lives where they become their own person and take ownership of their own lives and decisions. They will always be 'your child' though. Not someone elses but yours.

So yeah ownership is for me about the right to something and the responsibility of it. But it is also just a word to describe the act of being responsible for and having the right to something, without the word I believe we would still have the concept, without prescribed legal positions on ownership to protect those rights and enforce those responsibilities we would, I believe, still instinctively set the boundary of 'mine'

am now off to read up on nassim harramein. (love the irony of the 'mein' in surname given the thread)

lol just beat me to it and uncanny to see how you were perfectly in tune with me on that too

thanks for all the links - perfect excuse not to do cleaning

@rep you are right not all parents think in the way I described - usually I try not to generalise but every so often I get so caught up in trying to type out what I am thinking coherently I forget to add the 'some not all' disclaimer

I am totally one of those 'mine' people - conversely I am also one of the most generous and least materialistic people I know. However when stoned the other night I chose to pour salad cream over the few remaining malteasers rather than give them up having already relinquished 3/4 of MY pack to mr thoreau who had already eaten his pack and all of our jaffa cakes!!! for the umpteenth time that month. Suffice to say the salad cream malteaser combo was rank and neither of us could eat them.

But they were MINE!! I had already shared beyond the point of fairness and had mr thoreau wanted to go to the shop and spend our remaining few quid on a packet all to himself that would have been fine. But those few left were MINE I tell thee MINE!!!

The next morning I did feel like an utter twat though

Now you see if you had an armed government agent in your house you may not have spoiled your malteasers.

As a disabled, low paid female I reckon that government agent would have been on mr thoreaus' side regardless that and the weed would have been confiscated, the malteasers taken for evidence then conveniently lost and the salad cream reclassified as a weapon of mass destruction - damn those armed government agents thats the last time I let them in

Just bribe 'em with some scooby snacks.