When I went back inside the house, I tried researching exactly what ownership meant. To my surprise, I found that Harvey Reeves Calkins (1915) researched this topic and presented his findings in a book titled, A Man and His Money. In it he claims that ancient Roman Law is the foundational philosophy on which ownership rests.
But that invisible bond between a person and what s/he owns seems somewhat selfish. Calkins claimed that "Ownership signifies the nearness, or possible nearness, of other people who can be hindered from possessing or enjoying the thing that is mine. In a word, ownership means hindrance;" meaning: keep others from taking what I own.
I hunted for more up-to-date meanings of ownership to find that Encarta Encyclopedia (2005) claims that "Ownership involves, first and foremost, possession," but since I was not grasping or wearing the t-shirt, accordingly, ownership would seem questionable.
Encarta goes on to say that with any property: "ownership in modern societies implies the right to use, prevent others from using . . . ." In my mind, this prevention means brute force. To me, there are two points clearly evident from my weed pulling experience:
1) There is a world of invisible "thingies" for want of a better term, and ownership is one of them.
2) The best way to prove the t-shirt is mine is to keep it on or to use brute force. If an intruder lifted it and refused to give it back, only if I was larger and more muscular than the thief could I clobber the robber into returning it.
Is a sweaty, smelly t-shirt, attached to me with no strings, worth a black eye?
Article comments
1 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Hmmm... Interesting thought. But, what about the weeds? I mean are they really yours to be pulling out of the ground. Especially considering that they are alive and all. So,in essence, were you killing something that wasn't yours? And, what about the land that your house is on? And, what about the house? Man, this could make someone go nuts:)
2 - John Wilson
Ownership is an artificial construct of human society, and then only in recent epochs. It is only recently that the idea of ownership of everything could be considered.
3 - roger nowosielski
Especially in a bourgeois society, whereby commodities, and ownership/echange of commodities, embody actual social relations.
Marx 101
4 - Dr Dreadful
Ownership isn't really that new a concept, but its tenuousness has long been recognized.
In Anglo-Saxon society, for example, it was considered so important that people grasped the rather unnatural notion of ownership that theft was a capital offence.
Murder wasn't.
5 - roger nowosielski
Interesting, Dreadful. What time period are we taling about?
6 - Regis
Time period has nothing to do with it. To me it is the invisibility of any physical "strings attached" that blows my mind. Are we, perhaps, talking about invisible being of some kind or mental concepts which are invisible being of some kind? Not believing much in mind beyond the brain, this concept bothers me.
7 - Dr Dreadful
Prior to 1066, Rog. Saxon law incoporated a concept called Maegth, in which certain crimes - for example, homicide - were held to be the responsibility not only of the murderer but also of his or her kin. Any capital retribution, revenge or other recompense was a matter for the killer's and victim's families to settle between themselves, and was no business of the state. Hence, no official death penalty: it was up to the parties involved to impose one if they wished.
8 - Regis
So, Dr. Dreadful, as much as it bothers me, it does seem that BRUTE FORCE ultimately determines ownership.
What fascinates me is that a purely physical act determines a purely invisible connection.
9 - roger nowosielski
Interesting. Got to read up on this.
10 - roger nowosielski
A physical act creates a symbolic relationship.