[cazum]

This test has some interesting edge cases though:

For example, I can own 200lbs of crystal meth, and when the police come to arrest me for it, they will have no problem claiming I own it. But according to this rule, I don't actually own the drugs because those same cops will prevent me from selling it.

[thaumasiotes]

The cops will also be happy to take your meth as soon as they see it, so the argument that you do "own" it isn't that strong.

[geggam]

If you can prevent them from taking it do you own it ?

Seems your argument over ownership comes down to force ?

[alasdair_]

>Seems your argument over ownership comes down to force ?

ALL arguments over ownership come down to force.

This is how we wound up having nations - some group had more force than some other group. It continues to this day - war exists as the most obvious example of this but softer forces, such as the ability to demand and enforce sanctions also count.

In a wider sense, ALL law comes down to force, since without the ability to enforce(!) it, law is meaningless.

Put much more simply: people with nuclear weapons don't have to pay their parking tickets.

[bloak]

> In a wider sense, ALL law comes down to force, since without the ability to enforce(!) it, law is meaningless.

I don't think that's true in any useful way. It's perfectly possible to create rules and worry later about how to enforce them. Sometimes the only penalty for breaking the rules is disapproval. In fact, that's quite common, both for minor domestic offences and in international law. It doesn't make the laws "meaningless"; they may still be very influential in various ways.

[thaumasiotes]

Yes, if you can prevent everyone else from taking something, you own that thing.

That's what ownership is.