This reminds me of the difference between our definition of property, based on the Roman law vs. how it is/was perceived by hunter-gatherer societies. Our (mod

This reminds me of the difference between our definition of property, based on the Roman law vs. how it is/was perceived by hunter-gatherer societies. Our (modern, not nec. "western" whatever that term means) definition boils down to: usus, fructus, abusus (use, benefit/derive profit, destroy) In other words, complete ownership means: this is mine, I can control when you have access to it, I can do whatever I want with it. A contrasting definition would involve domination, in a sense that: I have control over a certain resource and thus I need to take care of it. A practical, classic historical example would be slavery. Owning a slave means exclusion from the society and thus turning them into property whose owner could deal with as they pleased. Native Americans (NWE, or Southern) practiced what we call capturing and treated their slaves more like pets, to the point where taking care of a "pet", "training" them could be a way of introducing them back into society. This was not always the case, but it shows a huge, deeply embedded difference in how we perceive the world and the idea of property now.