...would a house that I built myself be mine?
My view of ownership has evolved during the period of my stewardship of the property; that has been my (and many others') place of residence for over 30 years.
Let us assume that the house belongs to this theoretical person or at the least they are just stewards and don't know it. Try stop paying your property tax and you will soon learn who really think they own it.
Theoretical is used as his imagined lonely life and dieing alone is not wished to be projected towards you. 😎
When he dies who would have ownership at that point? Go with the scam that kept royals in power for centuries; next of kin?
Will the vines not be allowed to swallow the abandoned house over time? And will not trees be allowed to fill the fallow fields?
It is hard for me to see who owns what when stepping outside my species superiority.
So lets think only of the house. Lets say a theoretical person stumbles apon it and find the first theoretical person dead in the armchair. Perhaps it will be as simple as digging a hole and putting the dead theorerocal person in it to place their mark of ownership? Is this idea of Voluntaryism branding correct?
What if I plant an apple tree next to it? Is that mine, as well?
This is a great case in point as there are two cherry trees 7 mature maple, one 40-ish year old willow, deep rooted canning and eating grape vines and a raspberry bush in the small urban grove; which has been in my Stewardship for over 30 years now.
The flocks of birds which are drawn to the lot singing and chatting as they gore themselves on grapes and cherries is payment enough for my duties. If required for my own subsistence then nets could be employed to block the birds; yet there is no telling how many trees they have pooped out in flying/pooping range from that location. 😎
If someone came along with the needed ladders they would be welcome to the harvest with good cause. If someone came to chop the cherries down for their wood they would first have to come through the Steward of the grove.
You are welcome to a small tour of the place in an old blog post of mine. A link to it is included below for your reading pleasure.
https://steemit.com/life/@novacadian/keep-the-homefires-burning
All these rules sound arbitrary, though. As the owner of the property, I respect your generosity and care for the planet. The reason you can dictate what is and is not acceptable use of your property is because of ownership. Otherwise, (without a solid, clearly defined property norm, based on objective reality, that is) you could make no case against an individual who might show up up to chop down your trees, or move into your house.
That is what I am getting at here.
Yes we are in agreement. Without the central aurhority supporting ones ownership/stewardship it is hard for me to imagine how ownership.would work in a fully libratarian or voluntary societies without a common community standard of what is good stewardship..
It is my feeling that a shared community approved ownship, with a mindset of stewardship, may be a workable solution. Practical examples may be found in some First Nations communities where the stewardship mindset may be more prevalent than outside of some of those communities. We find south american tribal peoples standing up to corporate mining and amazon raping like good stewards. We see west coast native communities turning down Big Oil payoffs to protect the water as good stewards should do.
Ownership is when you mix the labor with the land.
You then own the resources gained from that land.
Those resources can be traded with other people for their resources/goods/labor/whatever.
Stewardship doesn't lead to ownership.
It's explained in detail in this free book:
https://archive.org/details/ASpontaneousOrder0
The only part I don't agree with is using the word spontaneous. It's just not centrally organized. But the order is intentionally created by humans.