[knorker]

> All of your examples are real things. They exist in the physical world. Naturally finite, tangible.

"Ownership" isn't physical.

> It makes intuitive sense to most people.

This is just pleading to the anonymous crowd of an imagined silent majority who agree with you.

Ask a majority if they think it should be legal to open a store selling bootleg copies of Britney Spears CDs, videogames, and whatever else they want to sell.

> Police, courts, entire industries worth trillions of dollars, entire countries have been trying to make it real for what, over 50 years?

So you think it's not real? Go ahead. Try it then. You're saying it's both ethical and de facto legal. Seems like a slam dunk million dollar idea. Good luck.

[matheusmoreira]

> "Ownership" isn't physical.

Land is.

> This is just pleading to the anonymous crowd of an imagined silent majority who agree with you.

What? I'm saying that most people intuitively agree with you when it comes to ownership of physical things. I don't see what the issue is.

> So you think it's not real? Go ahead. Try it then.

Have you ever been to a developing country? There's an entire block filled with stores just like you described less than 15 minutes from me right now.

[knorker]

>> "Ownership" isn't physical.

> Land is.

But ownership isn't. How are you not getting this?

[matheusmoreira]

Land ownership is physical too. Apply a little violence and your land is gone. Villages can be raided. Countries can be invaded. Organized drug traffickers can literally take over entire cities.

You need to be there and defend your land if you want to keep it. The fact that in civilized society people have transferred this responsibility to governments doesn't make it any less physical.