Also I learned, in this thread, that you don’t “own” something, or somebody, unless you can sell it.
That means you own one of your kidneys, which you can sell, on the black market, but not the other?
Very enlightening thread.
I didn’t realize that so few humans in this world, actually own-themselves. You are not your own property? Whaaaaaaaaat???
Equivocation is critical thinking 101. There many senses in which feeling that something is yours, has nothing to do with property ownership.
Care to respond to this?
A country and street (neighborhood) is a collection of people and individuals. People can own a society, as they own themselves. You are beholden to your own kind. This is simple biology, shouldn’t have to explain it to a bunch of grown adult “philosophers” on a philosophy forum. Even insects, ants for example, feel kinship and are beholden/loyal to one-another and “their own” colony. If you accept this fact, and you do, then how are you even making an argument or disagreement? How are you not contradicting yourself immediately? As-if ants follow one biological-rule, and humans are some kind of exception? Why and how?
Owning colors is not the same as owning objects, property, self, etc. That’s more metaphorical. Do you own the money in your bank account? Who knows, maybe not, according to this thread?
Give me all your money. It’s mine, not yours. Disagree?? Then I guess you’re not acting or speaking on principle?
Mating and copulation is an act of ownership, domination, and subjugation, yes. Woman submits to man, sexually, is dominated by him (penetrated).
What is the symbolism of poking your pecker into somebody and making babies??? Seriously, tell me.
Welcome to Justice, Law, Order, Morality. This is the basic question. People blame and assign (ownership) of problems upon each other daily. Democrats vs Republics, Left vs Right, Liberal vs Conservative, everyday.
As-if there is some alternative? You tell me.
As far as people are concerned (which was the OP of this thread)
People have costodianship. Guardianship.
These definitions imply that there are innate rights to those who are custodied and guarded.
That’s not ownership in the sense of slavery, actually, it’s not ownership at all.
Thus you are refuted.
Make a new thread that deals with objects (like a lamp) and then we can have a slightly interesting discussion.
But in fact, you don’t own the country you live in in the same sense as owning a house, yet you still call it yours.
This means what exactly in a country of millions or billions of people? That you own them all as your property?
Ah, yes… why explain your thinking to someone in a discussion.
Great. So we agree that there are different senses of the word ownership.
It’s not worth my time to explain how being parent to a child is a substantially and qualitatively different relationship than being owner of a book, but if we at least agree that there are different senses of ownership then I’ll leave you to sort out what the difference could be. If your prefer to think it impossible that there could be any difference, so be it.
Incorrect, building a country is the same as building a house.
Are you implying, here, that there is less ownership between mother and child, than there is person and book?
Very interesting! Explain more!
I love this thread!
Um, that would be me… 
One’s kidney is indeed their’s, and so is the other… I wouldn’t recommend selling both though…
I do think it hot (for want of a better word) that a couple desire to own each other, indicating exclusivity… I did say as much in the Comedy thread here, in relation to an online game called Pets, where members can buy each other and pay to set themselves free. I still prefer the word ‘belonging‘ though.
I think Ownership has more to do with what you are completely unwilling to sell. Things which are priceless.
Like your own children.
Nature and Life is not absolute. Many children are ‘sold’, down the river.
Consider how many children are ‘given’ over to political agendas… Abortion, these new riots, protests, anti-life and anti-american movements.
Think of how many children are ‘given’ over to God, to religion, to Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.
How can children be ‘given’ over, unless they are somebody else’s to give?
“Westerners” want to make-believe, Pretend, childish-fantasy-land, that “people don’t own each-other”, but they do. And because they do, it’s causing a misconception, a Grand Lie, where even adults on this forum, here, philosophically, cannot answer, or claim not to understand, basic concepts of Ownership, specifically, that a person does not own Him/Herself.
How can you own your book, your kidney, your things which you “can sell”, if you don’t own yourself first?
Maybe, in order to be a Perfect Victim, completely Non-responsible for anything or anybody, you have to “give yourself up”. Maybe people do not own themselves.
Maybe people have already been ‘sacrificed’ to some other cause? Like a soldier in war, your life is not “your own”?
That’s one way of looking at it, from that perspective, of an unwillingness to depart with that which is dearest to the heart… there are plenty who misuse the ownership of their children though, and place them in the most precarious of situations, so humans always naturally owning their children doesn’t always work out, for the child.
You ever seen when a female, attempts to bond with another female’s baby? that’s really crossing a line… unless you’re family, and even then, there are limits.
Giving children over to the negative and harmful aspects of society is never great nor good, but the aspect of study and worship is… as opposed to ignorance and inquisitions.
Perhaps having never felt owned, “Westerners” and some other “Nations” do not harbour the concept and feeling of ownership, making it alien to us, as a notion… unless we individually want it to be so, towards those that we are enamoured of and by.
We do give ourselves up… to nature, to our whims, to our ideals… they are ours, without having to say so, just as children are to their parents.
Yes but we didn’t create ourselves entirely by ourselves - lets say the mother owns a portion of you originally because of the labour she did.
Self-ownership is thus generally approached as an ideal rather than as a given, and as such it works to inspire capitalism.
Interesting combination is capitalism and monotheism; self-ownership and giving oneself away to god under one umbrella. Protestantism is a natural result.
Beyond that, Liberty was invented as self-ownership including experience in the spiritual domain. Under the god Liberty, magic can be practiced without master; and I think it requires actual magic to truly possess oneself.
I believe that few people truly want Independence, which is the path to self-ownership.
Most people enjoy to be coddled, and adult-children, from birth to gravestone.
What does an Independent self-owned individual look like, on paper, to you? I’m thinking… nomadic, Berber-esque types, but I don’t think you mean that type at all.
How do you go about owning yourself Urwrong? Do you say/think to yourself ‘own you baby, own you’? as opposed to ‘own it’? 
It is morally justified to pwn someone, but not, certainly not, to own someone.
Ownership is directly linked to sense-of-self, self-identity, morality, responsibility, and causality. If you do not, cannot, or will not think of yourself as an “agent of causality”, then you cannot “own” yourself either. And, as it appears, many people do not in fact “own” themselves. Rather, as I mentioned, people are Owned, not Owners. Race doesn’t matter, although it is part of the equation. Nor does gender. People are ‘owed’ to forces, or people, ‘higher’ than themselves. You can use God and religion as primary examples.
“Your life is not your own.” Is it? Yes? No? How do you go about ‘gaining’ ownership of yourself, except, to liberate yourself from those you are owned by? Owed to?
Obligated to.
Do you not owe your life to your biological parents?
As to “gaining ownership via independence”, Independence means something different for everybody, and with accordance to time, culture, setting, society, etc. Independence refers to Freedom. Can you live “outside” the system? Can you live within it? Some people can do both, some can do neither.
Be like the wind… set yourself free… even from yourself.
Owned by? Owed to? Sounds like cattle and arranged marriages, if you ask me… things that aren’t applicable to many.
Having obligations is par for the course, on our journey to fulfilling our goals and aims… but obligated to objectives not to other people.
Sure… but I weren’t best-pleased about all the chores there were to do.
That’s very subjective, and would be dependent on many factors, but yes… some could do one, the other, both, or neither. I’d say that the majority of people live as free as is possible, within the security of the confines of the State that they reside in.
So you admit your life is owed-to, by your biological parents, as-is everybody else ever born…
But you, and everybody else, also doesn’t like the thought of “being owned”.
It doesn’t change the fact.
Parents own their biological children. You are the ‘property’ of your mother, before and after your birth, curdled in the womb. If you deny this, as is the trend of this thread and conversation, then you must also concede the notion that, you do not “own yourself”, nor does a pregnant woman “own” the child in her womb. Not her property. Your self, is not your property.
So whose is it?
Another possibility: most people don’t know that they are ‘owned’, or, who owns them.
A nation issues a draft for war. You are called to war. Can you deny it? Can you resist? What will happen? Does your nation, own you? Do you have “human rights”, without your nation?
Consider these questions rhetorical, because I fear I already know the answers.
Do I own my father? Do children own their parents?
Do I own my enemy? my boss?
Do I own my neighbor? my co-workers? (do they own me since I am their coworker?)
Do I own my ex-wife? (does she own me, her ex-husband?
Does your spouse own you since you are her ex-husband?
Do you own your doctor? Or does she own you since you are HER patient?
I mean, jeez, an entire thread based on equivocation.
And here you are, equivocating that people do NOT own themselves, and parents do NOT own their biological children.
Don’t blame me for your lack of philosophy. You COULD answer simple questions. But you choose not to. Because you know the answers and their consequences.
Just admit it already, you believe that you own yourself, but in doing so, you admit Responsibility, and hence, admit Morality.
You admit that people are beholden to each other, responsible for each other. Maybe there are areas in your own life that you don’t want to uncover, through the course of dialogue here.