Is private property possible or just an illusion.

It seems to me that you are merely debating the definition of words. Were we to communicate by telepathy, this discussion would cease to exist because there would be no alternate interpretations of words when concepts could be conveyed precisely.

It can be taxed and bought against your will at the government determined price. They can determine what use you cannot make of it. You may have a stream running through your property and not be allowed to use it. If your property contains something designated as a wetland, you are probably stuck with a swamp forever. So yeah, I guess the discussion turns on your definition of the word "private."

Hm, it seems to me ttfactory, you have to define
between real, tangible property and intellectual property.

Real property you own due to the fact, you've paid
for the land/house and have received a deed of trust
for the property that is valid under every court of law.

Intellectual property is yours and yours to decided how
to treat such property. Even if someone else has the
same idea as you do, it is still your intellectual property,
you just share it with other people.

Should you decide to keep your idea for yourself and
never tell a soul, you'd be foolish, but everyone else
loses out on your idea.

Stuh - It sounds like your telepathy idea would take care of just about all of philosophy.

Calamaty - I may have a deed but immanent domain can take that from me - and that is valid in many courts of law.

It makes me wonder about intellectual property being just myh configeration of words and concepts that anyone has access to.

I guess ownership would need to be defined properly.

Roger:

Ownership seems to lend something that it is mine to do what I want with with outside impedement. Although I cannot leave my trash can out or paint my house any old color - despite my deed - because the community can levy a law against - not to mention the neiborhood board.

TTF

TTF

Re: Is private property possible or just an illusion.
TFF

You own everything you do and create.
You own your work, your ideas, yourself.
But why own land? Land was there. You can use it. But own it? Can you own the universe?
That does not make any sense to me.

I'm wondering if this thread might be better in the Legal forum.

Val:

Such as. My labor is my companies - my ideas are the company that I belong to. If I state them aloud they seem to loose my ownership immediately.

I tend to see ideas - as coming from the universe (since we have not truly invented anything) and are therefore borrowed.

TTF

Yest TTF, however immanent domain is not that common
and in general you'll own your land/house until the day
you decide to sell it.

You always can find an extreme situation why you're not
in charge of your personal or intellectual property, however,
the norm is pretty basic on this subject matter.

cav, only if you were trying to find legal means to protect real or
intellectual property, which means if TTF were in jeopardy of
losing such property.

So far he's trying to find out if indeed one has the ability to make
such properties its own, or if they're is a higher power to claim
it.

Calamity:

As William James made allusion to - any phenomena is best seen in all its lights - sometimes extremeties are needed to see a concept in its own right.

I know that right now the following entities have lein on my house:

1) The Bank
2) The State.
3) The federal government.
4) The city.
5) The township
6) The nieborhood board.
7) The Electric Company.
8) and I am sure there are more that I am not aware of.

This doesn't seem so rare when you look at it like that.

TTF

Hm, TTF, they only can put a lien on your
house, if you default your payments - then you are
right.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't go so far as to say
that private property is an illusion.

Calamity - if I have 6 - 8 people that have some control over my property and can do things against my will at all times - what concept of ownership do I have?

It certainly cannot be total ownership - and when imminant domain is taken into consideration I am not sure what is left. It appears I lease it at best.

TTF

Meh, debt is flexible, and most collection people stupid, therefore malleable. Philisophically, or in the real world, you do have the power to protect your property up to a point. Again, if liens are the problem here, I still suggest a post in the Legal forum.

I think we can agree that in a court of law, you may be designated the owner, but in reality, you have borrowed it, if not from your government, then from your heirs. What land can you say is "free and clear"? Even full ownership with no mortgage, lease or lien is subject to a hefty taxes after five years of non-payment. (And that doesn't begin to take into account the various legal expectations so often found for covenants, easements, both personal and attached, rights of entry, community dues, environmental seizing and police actions.)

Land holds a lot of liabilities despite being designated an asset. To me, it is something you hold in trust for the future generations, who will (we hope) continue to hold it in trust for their future generations.

I've seen some sad land seizures -- most recently some cases in the eastern half of the state regarding a river that was designated necessary for salmon run rehabilitation. What happens when the water rights are seized from your only home, one you built for your golden years? You're screwed and it can be extraordinarily costly.

BTW -- Please don't be offended but just in case you try to look it up, the proper term is "eminent domain."

http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/propertyguide.html

A friend of mine lamented the continual noise of aeroplanes flying to and from an airport over his "private" property. I guess you are talking
about the ground and not the air space.

Ha, if I owned the air space above my house, that would
be just wonderful. I could charge good money for
everyone infringing into my precious air space. Just like
playing Monopoly

cav, that's right - if there is indeed a lien involved at
TTF's house, than it should be moved to "Legal",
however my understanding was, that his questioning
is hypothetical (I think).

Piffka, you said it perfectly understandable - we have
our property in trust for our future generations and hope
they're as diligent in paying bills as we are

Piffka - thanks for the correction. I knew as I was writing it that it was spelled wrong - and was too lazy to fix it.

I am not sure if hypothetical is the right term - but perhaps metaphysical or exetential is too pretentious.

I think your concept of borrowing is where I was leaning. It seems we own nothing - we are just the borrowers. It seems we build nothing - we just rearrange. It appears we have thought nothing original - we have just moved things around in our head.

TTF

If the ambiguity in an opinion ceases to exist when miscommunication is eliminated, then what is the point of having the discussion? Because then you are really just arguing over people's precise definitions of words.

But I do not think, as you suggest, that all philosophical arguments are based on miscommunication.

A good example of Piffka's point that we are merely trustees for future "owners" (trustees), is my "ownership" of a fine old Italian violin (1781).
I've wondered how many people have owned and/or played this instrument over the last two centures and two decades. I have usufruct (use right) to the violin. Noone else can use it without my permission, and I have the right to sell it, like a commodity. And I suppose I have a legal right to destroy it (the hairs on my arms stood up as I typed that), but in the minds of virtually every musician, at least, I have no moral right to do so.
I'm so glad, however, that my paid-for house is not on the boundaries of the local university. I've seen too many houses snatched up (eminent domain) for university expansion. In the case of one property "owner", she had to retain a lawyer to resist the forced sell in court. She lost, and now feels very cynical about Bush's "ownership society."