How Possessions Differ From Property

As for controlling "one's own" property being an authoritarian concept which underwrites the rightness of controlling others, this is easier to see if you have something with which to contrast it. Let us re-establish the ancient distinction between possession and property, a distinction which the corporate propaganda machines we euphemistically call the "mass media" annihilate.

Possessions are things which you personally use on a routine basis, perhaps even day to day. My toothbrush, my clothes, the 10 GB of files on my hard drive. These are examples of personal possessions. And in all these cases, it is obvious that sharing these possessions would annihilate their value. Toothbrush and clothes for hygiene reasons, computer data for privacy reasons. Equally obvious, this is not the case with most property.

Most property is social. A house is used by an entire family. The fact that it legally "belongs to" only one person is at odds with who possesses it. A factory is used by the people who work there and indirectly the people who live nearby and the people who consume its products, not some boss or absentee landlord (aka shareholder). If we take possession to be 10 tenths of rightful law, then we already see cases of illegitimate property. And we further see that in most cases (in the case of social possessions, as opposed to personal possessions) having one person "own" and control the property automatically gives them control over other people.

Having a boss "own" a factory automatically gives him control over the people who live near it (who are subjected to noise and other pollution), the people who work in it (who are under his direct control) and even the people who consume products from it (who now have little say over the quality of products or methods of production). Once we have distinguished between ownership and possession, how can ownership not automatically translate into controlling the lives of others?

Further comparison between possession and ownership: a person possesses their body, they do not own it. To own something implies the ability to sell it. So if people were to own their bodies, this would imply they could sell themselves into slavery. Thus, any ideology or system that includes the concept of "ownership of oneself" (as opposed to possession of oneself) is thoroughly reprehensible.

Also, possessions are not transferable in the same way that ownership is transferable. If I stop working at a factory then the job will go to someone else, thus my share of possession has been transferred. But the person who receives possession is a new worker at the factory (or if no one gets hired, the share goes back to the other workers). It's not possible for me to transfer possession of my share of the factory to someone who will never work there. Additionally, there are absolute limits on possessions. It would not be possible for a single person to work all of the jobs in a large factory, nor for them to use on a daily basis the housing available by a single luxury hotel.

Any system of property that functions in any way differently from this has embedded within it control over other people's lives. A share in a corporation is a share in the control over the lives of the people who work there. The ability to sell such shares to people who don't work in that company is the ability to sell control over people. Ownership by one person of a factory or hotel (let alone chains of them) represents the ability to control the lives of large numbers of people.

IOW, we already have a term for 'non-authoritarian property' and that term is 'possession'. By refinement of language, when someone uses the term 'property', they mean authoritarian property. Thus, property is automatically authoritarian.

Does one own or possess a vehicle? A house? A vacation home? If the answer is to own, does that make owning a car authoritarian? If so, how?

The case with homes is already dealt with above. Ownership of homes is authoritarian because the people who own them (landlord, bank, or parents) can force other residents to move against their will. Vacation homes are possessions when one uses them, authoritarian property when one rents or lends them out, and useless luxury otherwise.

For vehicles, taxis are the authoritarian property of the cab company, as are taxi drivers' licenses. But in general, cars tend to be useless luxury items (see CarAddiction). In those cases when they are necessary, they are authoritarian because a car owner can dictate when the rest of the family can use it. Car driving itself is an authoritarian activity since drivers are waging a mortal war against pedestrians (a war whose casualties run to the tens of thousands each year), as well as inflicting noise, pollution, taking up valuable urban space, and depleting the world's reserves of petrol.

Useless luxury items have strange properties. They are possessions even when not actively used; their use derives from their ownership, from being able to point to a bill of sale and saying "this is mine". So in that sense they are possessions, and personal possessions to boot since sharing them would destroy their value as status symbols. Of course having status symbols means the society is authoritarian.

Richard, please resolve this in the context of "possessions which one has created oneself." If I make it with my own hands, is it mine or am I just its custodian? -- GarryHamilton

If you create an idea, you're automatically its possessor. But why should you have some kind of "ownership" over the idea just because you were the first to discover it?

If you rearrange matter then you must have been its possessor when you rearranged it. But why should you have total control over a natural resource (river, forest, plain, et cetera) just because you were the first to take advantage of it?

If you cut down all the trees in a forest, does that mean you have total control over the wood (none of which you created, merely transformed) and that future generations are screwed? That's the common propertarian position and it is no less authoritarian for it.

There is no legitimate argument by which one can transform an unowned resource (ie, everything) into property. There are only two legitimate arguments by which a person can even make use of a resource. The first is that they need it and the second is that nobody exists to object to it. Neither of these arguments can be used to support property. Consider that future generations (which do exist, if only in the future) will object if you raze all the forests and deplete all the easily accessible oil wells.

In any case, beyond flint knives and bear skins, nothing can be said to have been created solely by an individual human being. Every thing is the product of societies, often working for generations to achieve that thing. Every thought a person has is the product of millennia of psychological and intellectual evolution. And whatever you do "with your own hands" is merely the final packaging in a long assembly line. Each and every one of us stands on a heap of midgets.

See also PrivateProperty?, ArtistsRights

Do I understand correctly that "I have the X in my property" means "I have the ability to control possession of the X by others"?

So, when I go home tonight, and find that a family has taken up squatting in my house, I should - what? Just go find someplace else to live? Sleep on the street? Go squat in someone else's house? Oops, wait a sec - I never did make it home in this scenario, because someone took my car from the parking lot during the day while I was in the office. After all, did I really "possess" these items (house, car) while I wasn't in them? What makes my possession of them any more valid than that of the squatter/car thief? What, exactly, defines "possession", such that anyone can actually expect such possession to be honored by others? What the hell kind of life would this be?

CategoryDegeneralization CategoryComparisons