Ownership Rights

Eh, I'm not in that great of a 'thinking'-mood today and haven't been as of recent, so this is going to be a relatively short blog in comparison to my previous ones.

Yet another semi off-topic discussion arose in class last Thursday: an issue of defining ownership. How exactly should it be handled when pertaining to property, and who is in a position to decide the answer to this question within a society?

Well, as noted in a comment of mine on a recent blog post, I'm not at all sure myself, but I do understand some of the factors at-hand when dealing with this question.

Some real basic stuff that I've decided I would want applied:

1. When pertaining to a portion of land that holds crucial/life-sustaining resources that are not available elsewhere within the region applicable to the society, there should probably be some requirement that the resources be available and distributable to the general-public, and be reinforceable by the government (or an angry mob) if the person titled as 'owner' of the land tries to combat this provision.

2. But just as well, the property should be the sole... well, property... of the owner, and should not be allowed to be accessible to or modified by others without the consent of the owner. If everyone lived life literally, everyone would agree with this, since 'ownership' means to have as your own; yours, not theirs -- period.

And this is where I run into a block in my thinking, haha.

I think the ownership of land should be singularly defined: you get it, it's yours, and nobody else can say/do anything unless you allow for it. Honestly, that's a scary concept for me to side with, and try to believe me when I say that I'm not trying to apply it to myself. But it just seems to be a default thing. Now, as for how someone comes to own a piece of land should be up to the society to vote on.

Those are my thoughts as of this moment at least.