3 ms·

Various laws restrict children and the inebriated from driving a car. Under your ownership definition, that means that the government owns the car, no? If so,

by dalke 12y ago

Various laws restrict children and the inebriated from driving a car. Under your ownership definition, that means that the government owns the car, no? If so, it seems like your example of what it means to "own" something is actually a counter-example.

lisper 12y ago
> Under your ownership definition, that means that the government owns the car, no? Actually, children and drunk people can legally drive, just not on public roads. There are a lot of restrictions on behavior in the interests of public safety that trump certain property rights under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean I don't own my car.
- dalke 12y ago
  Indeed - thanks for the correction!
- dalke 12y ago
  What about this counter-example - do you own a bottle of vodka if the government says that it's illegal for you to let a child drink it?
  - lisper 12y ago
    Do you own a gun if the government says it's illegal for you to shoot someone with it?
    - dalke 12y ago
      Your construction is "ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car." My mistake was interpreting that to include "where". By parallel construction, "ownership of a bottle of vodka equals the right to restrict who gets to use the bottle of vodka", doesn't it? We do not allow children to use a bottle of vodka in the same way that adults can use it. Your parallel construction should be "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict who gets to use the gun", but you instead countered with "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict how it can be used." Isn't that a similar mistake to the one I made? Prohibitions on the target are "a restriction on behavior in the interests of public safety that trump certain property rights", and not a restriction on who can shoot it, no?
      - lisper 12y ago
        > Your construction is "ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car." No. Ownership (IMO) includes the right to restrict. It's necessary, but not sufficient. But the converse is not necessary. It is not necessary that I be able to allow anyone to drive my car in order to say that I own it. I can't, for example, allow an unlicensed driver to drive my car, but that doesn't mean I don't own my car. > you instead countered with "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict how it can be used." No, you got this backwards. Ownership stands even in the face of (some) restrictions on how it can be used.
        dalke 12y ago
        Consider the statement "the government owns all bottles of vodka, but it allows you to control it within certain limits"? Is that statement invalid? If so, how? I believe your thesis, and in my words, is that in Norway "the government owns all land, but it allows people to control parcels of land within certain limits." I have a hard time coming up with a good definition which says the first is incorrect but the second is correct.
        lisper 12y ago
        The statement is not invalid, it just doesn't fit my intuition of what ownership means.
        dalke 12y ago
        One of the conjectures, regarding the freedom to roam in Norway, Sweden, etc., is based on the observation that these lands never had serfdom. It may be that your intuition is based on feudal principles, echoing a feudal lord's objection to the monarch's control. While an enticing conjecture, I suspect the relative population sparsity of those countries, where property damages of the right to roam are within the capacity of the land to handle, is a greater reason. Examples involving consumable or personal goods, like a car or bottle of vodka, don't have the same capacity. As a related example, in Minnesota and likely elsewhere, boaters may use the lake surface even though the lake bottom is jointly owned by all of the landowners surrounding the lake. (See http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Pardon_Me_Myth.pdf http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Pardon_Me_M... .)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
gambiting 12y ago
No. Both children and drunk people can drive their cars whenever they want on private property. The government only says they can't do it on PUBLIC roads, because it's against the interests of the public. Your example would make sense if children and drunk people were prohibited from using their own cars even on private property, and that's not the case. In some countries this may be different - in some eu countries if you cause an accident while drunk while on private property, you might be prosecuted.

by dalke 12y ago

lisper 12y ago

> Under your ownership definition, that means that the government owns the car, no? Actually, children and drunk people can legally drive, just not on public roads. There are a lot of restrictions on behavior in the interests of public safety that trump certain property rights under certain circumstances. That doesn't mean I don't own my car.

dalke 12y ago
Indeed - thanks for the correction!
dalke 12y ago
What about this counter-example - do you own a bottle of vodka if the government says that it's illegal for you to let a child drink it?
- lisper 12y ago
  Do you own a gun if the government says it's illegal for you to shoot someone with it?
  - dalke 12y ago
    Your construction is "ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car." My mistake was interpreting that to include "where". By parallel construction, "ownership of a bottle of vodka equals the right to restrict who gets to use the bottle of vodka", doesn't it? We do not allow children to use a bottle of vodka in the same way that adults can use it. Your parallel construction should be "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict who gets to use the gun", but you instead countered with "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict how it can be used." Isn't that a similar mistake to the one I made? Prohibitions on the target are "a restriction on behavior in the interests of public safety that trump certain property rights", and not a restriction on who can shoot it, no?
    - lisper 12y ago
      > Your construction is "ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car." No. Ownership (IMO) includes the right to restrict. It's necessary, but not sufficient. But the converse is not necessary. It is not necessary that I be able to allow anyone to drive my car in order to say that I own it. I can't, for example, allow an unlicensed driver to drive my car, but that doesn't mean I don't own my car. > you instead countered with "ownership of a gun equals the right to restrict how it can be used." No, you got this backwards. Ownership stands even in the face of (some) restrictions on how it can be used.
      - dalke 12y ago
        Consider the statement "the government owns all bottles of vodka, but it allows you to control it within certain limits"? Is that statement invalid? If so, how? I believe your thesis, and in my words, is that in Norway "the government owns all land, but it allows people to control parcels of land within certain limits." I have a hard time coming up with a good definition which says the first is incorrect but the second is correct.
        lisper 12y ago
        The statement is not invalid, it just doesn't fit my intuition of what ownership means.
        dalke 12y ago
        One of the conjectures, regarding the freedom to roam in Norway, Sweden, etc., is based on the observation that these lands never had serfdom. It may be that your intuition is based on feudal principles, echoing a feudal lord's objection to the monarch's control. While an enticing conjecture, I suspect the relative population sparsity of those countries, where property damages of the right to roam are within the capacity of the land to handle, is a greater reason. Examples involving consumable or personal goods, like a car or bottle of vodka, don't have the same capacity. As a related example, in Minnesota and likely elsewhere, boaters may use the lake surface even though the lake bottom is jointly owned by all of the landowners surrounding the lake. (See http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Pardon_Me_Myth.pdf http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Pardon_Me_M... .)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

gambiting 12y ago

No. Both children and drunk people can drive their cars whenever they want on private property. The government only says they can't do it on PUBLIC roads, because it's against the interests of the public. Your example would make sense if children and drunk people were prohibited from using their own cars even on private property, and that's not the case. In some countries this may be different - in some eu countries if you cause an accident while drunk while on private property, you might be prosecuted.