We are, because what you call ownership isn’t what I call ownership.
Let’s agree to disagree. But I find it sad that you wanna boil it down to semantics and don’t address the aspects of control that allow you to stop considering ownership as ownership.
Can your “owners” buy and sell Capital? Are they competing in markets? Why would they want to own Capital, if not for accumulation and profit? What you’re calling “ownership” is by all accounts the same as managers and administrators in a publicly owned and planned economy. You haven’t explained how they own in a way distinct from a manager or administrator.
So then they aren’t owners. They can’t buy or sell what they “own,” they come into power via democratic means, they don’t compete in markets to accumulate more Capital. These aren’t owners. Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?
Please explain why and how your “owners” actually own if they have no actual ownership, and purely serve as administrators and managers. Can they, or can’t they, sell or buy more Capital? What are these “rights” they have that are sufficient for ownership?
To me all you need for ownership is a paper stating that your title will be “owner” in relation to a good, and some rights / obligations assotiated to it.
We are, because what you call ownership isn’t ownership.
We are, because what you call ownership isn’t what I call ownership.
Let’s agree to disagree. But I find it sad that you wanna boil it down to semantics and don’t address the aspects of control that allow you to stop considering ownership as ownership.
Can your “owners” buy and sell Capital? Are they competing in markets? Why would they want to own Capital, if not for accumulation and profit? What you’re calling “ownership” is by all accounts the same as managers and administrators in a publicly owned and planned economy. You haven’t explained how they own in a way distinct from a manager or administrator.
I have explained that they don’t, as long as they are scrutinized in the same level as I consider owners should be.
So then they aren’t owners. They can’t buy or sell what they “own,” they come into power via democratic means, they don’t compete in markets to accumulate more Capital. These aren’t owners. Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?
Yes, that’s what you think.
Because it’s you who thinks they don’t own, not me.
Please explain why and how your “owners” actually own if they have no actual ownership, and purely serve as administrators and managers. Can they, or can’t they, sell or buy more Capital? What are these “rights” they have that are sufficient for ownership?
To me all you need for ownership is a paper stating that your title will be “owner” in relation to a good, and some rights / obligations assotiated to it.
So if I write down on a piece of paper that I own the US, I do? What are these “rights/obligations” that are sufficient for ownership?