All “ownership” is only temporary. It is also almost always never completely, nor even really, “owned”. Perhaps a better word (in addition to access, use, and control) might be (having) “custody”. People don’t really “own” things they think they do – because a government, financial lender, or other entity can tax it, take it away, or tell the “owners” what they can and/or cannot do with it (long after it is “paid for” in full).
It is debatable whether people even “own” their “own” bodies – and not just because there are more people enslaved and trafficked world-wide today than were during the entire trans-Atlantic transfer of people from Africa to the Americas. Even “free” people really aren’t – at least as much as they often think they are.
Claims of “intellectual property” are usually overstated – since even the most “original” thought or creation is seldom so unique that only one person has ever thought of or tired it, but also is because it is based on preexisting ideas, concepts, and knowledge – that the “creator” claiming “ownership” seldom is even aware of when or where they acquired most of it (usually without any required payment or permission).
The concept of (required) “reciprocity” is almost as influential as perceptions of “scarcity”. Money is a form of debt. Debt is the idea that something is “owed” (rather than “owned”). Exchanges between people are almost never really “equal” in (perceived) “value” – yet for almost everything given or received most people feel something is “owed” in return. A “debtor” thus not only often “owes” more than received, but can also usually be “owned” until some sort of “balance” is restored. Giving anything monetary “value” usually lowers its “worth”. Not only can what is most desirable usually not be “owned”, but neither can it simply be bought – since it’s “priceless”.
Some people talk about and seek “financial freedom” (and “independence”) – as if it were actually possible. Maritime Admiralty Law governs all financial transactions – and the Uniform Commercial Code is usually the law most used (against people). A “law enforcement officer”, judge, or “attorney-at-law” asking if someone “understands the charges” wants to know the person will stand under (and accept) the (financial) “charges”. It usually best to say that you do NOT “understand” nor accept any “charges”. Payment of penalties will cost “time”, “money”, or both. “Debts” to “society” can usually never be (re)paid – no matter how much is taken.
That’s my perspective. What’s yours?
© 2010, Oren Pardes. All rights reserved.