So then they aren’t owners. They can’t buy or sell what they “own,” they come into power via democratic means, they don’t compete in markets to accumulate more Capital. These aren’t owners. Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?
Please explain why and how your “owners” actually own if they have no actual ownership, and purely serve as administrators and managers. Can they, or can’t they, sell or buy more Capital? What are these “rights” they have that are sufficient for ownership?
To me all you need for ownership is a paper stating that your title will be “owner” in relation to a good, and some rights / obligations assotiated to it.
If the paper is signed by an official of the US state with sufficient authority, and the laws of the country allow it, yes.
EDIT: I cannot respond to the reply below because we seem to have reached the max comment deph, so I’ll reply here
What comes with this ownership? What “rights/obligations” do I have?
That’s decided by the State, they are the ones enforcing those rights and demanding those obligations.
This is idealism, not materialism, ie this believes ideas create reality, rather than the inverse.
No, materialism is the view that all of reality can be reduced to the material, while idealism is the view that all of reality is in the realm of the mind / mental experience. I think you are mixing concepts, and in any case, neither of those positions has ever been able to be proven true… I’m perfectly happy to talk about philosophy of the mind (though you’ll find I’m more of an epiphenomenalist… even though all positions in this case have their issues), but it’s a completely different topic and you are not applying the concept correctly here.
What comes with this ownership? What “rights/obligations” do I have?
In my opinion, you are defining ownership as “any authority position that is called ownership.” I don’t think this is useful, at this point you are attempting to define the nature of a concept by the name we call it. This is idealism, not materialism, ie this believes ideas create reality, rather than the inverse.
I have explained that they don’t, as long as they are scrutinized in the same level as I consider owners should be.
So then they aren’t owners. They can’t buy or sell what they “own,” they come into power via democratic means, they don’t compete in markets to accumulate more Capital. These aren’t owners. Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?
Yes, that’s what you think.
Because it’s you who thinks they don’t own, not me.
Please explain why and how your “owners” actually own if they have no actual ownership, and purely serve as administrators and managers. Can they, or can’t they, sell or buy more Capital? What are these “rights” they have that are sufficient for ownership?
To me all you need for ownership is a paper stating that your title will be “owner” in relation to a good, and some rights / obligations assotiated to it.
So if I write down on a piece of paper that I own the US, I do? What are these “rights/obligations” that are sufficient for ownership?
If the paper is signed by an official of the US state with sufficient authority, and the laws of the country allow it, yes.
EDIT: I cannot respond to the reply below because we seem to have reached the max comment deph, so I’ll reply here
That’s decided by the State, they are the ones enforcing those rights and demanding those obligations.
No, materialism is the view that all of reality can be reduced to the material, while idealism is the view that all of reality is in the realm of the mind / mental experience. I think you are mixing concepts, and in any case, neither of those positions has ever been able to be proven true… I’m perfectly happy to talk about philosophy of the mind (though you’ll find I’m more of an epiphenomenalist… even though all positions in this case have their issues), but it’s a completely different topic and you are not applying the concept correctly here.
What comes with this ownership? What “rights/obligations” do I have?
In my opinion, you are defining ownership as “any authority position that is called ownership.” I don’t think this is useful, at this point you are attempting to define the nature of a concept by the name we call it. This is idealism, not materialism, ie this believes ideas create reality, rather than the inverse.