So then they aren’t owners. They can’t buy or sell what they “own,” they come into power via democratic means, they don’t compete in markets to accumulate more Capital. These aren’t owners. Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?
Please explain why and how your “owners” actually own if they have no actual ownership, and purely serve as administrators and managers. Can they, or can’t they, sell or buy more Capital?
To me all you need for ownership is a paper stating that your title will be “owner” in relation to a good, and some rights / obligations assotiated to it.
So then they aren’t owners. They can’t buy or sell what they “own,” they come into power via democratic means, they don’t compete in markets to accumulate more Capital. These aren’t owners. Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?
Yes, that’s what you think.
Because it’s you who thinks they don’t own, not me.
To me all you need for ownership is a paper in relation to a good, and some rights / obligations assotiated to it.
Please explain why and how your “owners” actually own if they have no actual ownership, and purely serve as administrators and managers. Can they, or can’t they, sell or buy more Capital?
To me all you need for ownership is a paper stating that your title will be “owner” in relation to a good, and some rights / obligations assotiated to it.
So if I write down on a piece of paper that I own the US, I do? What are these “rights/obligations” that are sufficient for ownership?
If the paper is signed by an official of the US state with sufficient authority, and the laws of the country allow it, yes.
What comes with this ownership? What “rights/obligations” do I have?