[Dylan16807]

> No, they don't have ownership, they have possession.

Do you have a non-circular distinction between the two?

> And they use violence to enforce it.

Is that relevant?

> And if they leave their possessions, even for a moment, they don't have them anymore and another animal takes them.

It's not often that nests get stolen when they're left unattended.

[wfo]

Sure. If I beat you up and take your bike in the United States, I possess your bike, but I don't own it. That's an easy distinction by example and it is noncircular. The law thinks it belongs to you and men with guns will try to take it from you. How would you describe your relationship to an object in your safety deposit box? You certainly don't possess it. In a world without society, you would have zero relationship to it at all, it has nothing to do with you. All you have are the promises that it will be returned to you upon request and that those promises will be backed up by force of law, enforced by society.

Yes, ownership cannot exist without societal structure, it's a legal term invented to describe something so it's only relevant where law exists (i.e. society), which was exactly my point a couple of posts ago. That does NOT mean that ownership is "possession plus society". It simply means that ownership is a concept that cannot be defined without societal structure.

And it's very often that eggs inside nests get stolen when left unattended. They are food for other animals. How is the frequency with which something happens relevant here? I don't know what point you're trying to make; do you not understand what it means to own something? Do you believe that when you leave your home for work in the morning it ceases to be yours? Do you really believe there is no difference between a crow picking up an object and a contract assigning legal ownership of an object to a person? Is this a Socratic dialogue?

[anigbrowl]

Ownership is where you can get other people to support your possessory interest. I think the fact of violence is extremely relevant, and that you are discounting the impact it would have on you.

[Dylan16807]

> Ownership is where you can get other people to support your possessory interest.

Getting other people to "support" it sounds like society. Is that the only difference? If possession is exactly the same as ownership-minus-society, then the original argument that ownership only exists because of society is pretty circular. If that's the case then I reaffirm there's a huge difference between society-only 'ownership' like IP rights, and society-optional 'ownership' like physical possessions.

> I think the fact of violence is extremely relevant, and that you are discounting the impact it would have on you.

I'm not discounting violence, I'm just thinking about how the enforcement of laws is backed by violence and wondering what distinction there's supposed to be.