Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu
Their own reasons is that it has a value for them.
That was the example of Tom Sawyer supposed to explain, but maybe the glass collars and mirrors used by Colombus to exchange them for gold is better - each object had a lower value for the owner than the new things they acquired. They imprinted a value to these objects.
Or is this a better example: A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!
|
How about a block of land you no longer want but cannot sell? It no longer has any value to you, but as the owner you are still responsible for it. I've got stuff in my shed that is totally worthless to me, but it is still my property: I am responsible for seeing it disposed of responsibly. In economic terms, property can be an asset or a liability. Ownership works both ways, that's part of the deal.
I keep coming back to: property is a thing or things owned. That's it. We don't have to extend this argument to cover the abstract concept of value, we seem to be having enough trouble with what we've got.