chrismb wrote:Whereas the government seems to think that their possession of something is ownership, yet they regard an individuals ownership as not guaranteeing possession!!
Strange country you live in.
Ownership is basic. Government is instituted to prevent squabbling.
I felt I was talking about the US as well. Otherwise, perhaps someone could provide a good, simple explanation of how they saw fit to fill the pockets of bankers with billions of tax payers money, even though those bankers were the only ones who could have ever been responsible for the 'value' of the markets.
How many tax payers in your country felt that that was the way to go with their money?
My three year old definitely understands both possession and ownership.
As an example, he asked for a drink of my soda. I let him have a drink, and when he placed it back on the table I went to get a drink as well. He complained that it was his soda. I explained it was mine, but that I let him have a drink, and he accepted this and let me drink it without further complaint. When my wife tried to take a drink next, however, my son yelled at her, "No! That's Daddy's drink!" Definitely an understanding of ownership and that possession does not equal ownership.
MSimon wrote:"Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of ability, and recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the law... democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it. -- Will and Ariel Durant
...no.
Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of POWER (to concentrate wealth)... That is the 'ability', none other.
Both of you are wrong. Wealth condensation is a spontaneous systems process that simply happens. Ability is not a factor, and institutions of power are after the fact structures that evolve to protect the wealth randomly accrued.
chrismb wrote:Whereas the government seems to think that their possession of something is ownership, yet they regard an individuals ownership as not guaranteeing possession!!
Strange country you live in.
Ownership is basic. Government is instituted to prevent squabbling.
I felt I was talking about the US as well. Otherwise, perhaps someone could provide a good, simple explanation of how they saw fit to fill the pockets of bankers with billions of tax payers money, even though those bankers were the only ones who could have ever been responsible for the 'value' of the markets.
How many tax payers in your country felt that that was the way to go with their money?
KitemanSA wrote:Oh goody!! Another useless political arguement.
I thought it was an economics argument.
"Economics" is an abbreviation of "political economy" - literally "city-state household management". Aristotle makes a distinction between household management and wealth acquisition (Politics, Book I, Chapters 8-11).
krenshala wrote:My three year old definitely understands both possession and ownership.
Just to show why this legal [but very expensive and very real] pedantery isn't for the faint-hearted adult, let alone a child, consider patents: The process of being awarded a patent comes down to an individual being prepared to release into the public domain their idea. (They don't have to do that, they could keep the idea to themselves and not tell anyone.)
The essence of the principle of patents is for public ownership and benefit. The return to the inventor is a grant of an exclusive, executive possession of the right to exploit the idea, but NOT *ownership* of the idea. The invention now becomes public domain and the inventor becomes an assignee, not an owner.
Confused? Well, you should be!.... A "patent" is a commissioning declaration by a monarch and harks back to the time when you gave your idea to a monarch and if he was sufficiently pleased with you then he might commission you to work the idea [for him] as a monopoly.
chrismb wrote:Confused? Well, you should be!.... A "patent" is a commissioning declaration by a monarch and harks back to the time when you gave your idea to a monarch and if he was sufficiently pleased with you then he might commission you to work the idea [for him] as a monopoly.
While I've always understood how patents worked, I know my son would just say, "Its mine!" if you tried to tell that bit.
Betruger wrote:A formal witness convention, not monarchy.
Letters patent (pl. letters patent; litterae patentes) are a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government, granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or to some entity such as a corporation. ...
Thinking about a positive real return on capital resulting in wealth condensation...
I wonder whether contraception increases wealth condensation. After all even if there was a real positive return on capital, without contraception and with a breeding wealthy class, the return on capital per person could still remain stable across generation if a higher proportion of the children of the rich survived than the children of the poor.
Betruger wrote:A formal witness convention, not monarchy.
Letters patent (pl. letters patent; litterae patentes) are a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government, granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or to some entity such as a corporation. ...
Betruger wrote:A formal witness convention, not monarchy.
Letters patent (pl. letters patent; litterae patentes) are a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government, granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or to some entity such as a corporation. ...
I was referring to the historic meaning of 'patent' rather than the current. Obviously, words can loose and/or take on extra meanings during their life.
Back to the subject of 'ownership' - if I have [bought] a DVD of a film which is now out of copyright that has encrypted video files on it and I use DVD Shrink, or similar, to back up that disc onto a blank DVD, I have a) copied none of the original data (as I have changed it, removing the encryption) nor b) infringed copyright as no-one can now 'own' the original film material. Do I, therefore, now 'own' the specific data on that backup disc, seeing as I have generated it uniquely with my own computer? Indeed, could I even sell it and claim copyright for it?!
chrismb wrote:I was referring to the historic meaning of 'patent' rather than the current. Obviously, words can loose and/or take on extra meanings during their life.
Back to the subject of 'ownership' - if I have [bought] a DVD of a film which is now out of copyright that has encrypted video files on it and I use DVD Shrink, or similar, to back up that disc onto a blank DVD, I have a) copied none of the original data (as I have changed it, removing the encryption) nor b) infringed copyright as no-one can now 'own' the original film material. Do I, therefore, now 'own' the specific data on that backup disc, seeing as I have generated it uniquely with my own computer? Indeed, could I even sell it and claim copyright for it?!
chrismb wrote:I was referring to the historic meaning of 'patent' rather than the current. Obviously, words can loose and/or take on extra meanings during their life.
Back to the subject of 'ownership' - if I have [bought] a DVD of a film which is now out of copyright that has encrypted video files on it and I use DVD Shrink, or similar, to back up that disc onto a blank DVD, I have a) copied none of the original data (as I have changed it, removing the encryption) nor b) infringed copyright as no-one can now 'own' the original film material. Do I, therefore, now 'own' the specific data on that backup disc, seeing as I have generated it uniquely with my own computer? Indeed, could I even sell it and claim copyright for it?!
