this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
44 points (92.3% liked)
Asklemmy
51949 readers
869 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The medieval monks order of the Franciscans claimed exactly that and they gained quite some influence, land, buildings, and even money while claiming absolute poverty (not even collective ownership). It all relied on the claim, that the Pope was the true owner. But that also put the Pope in a difficult position as a merely worldly ruler of questionable morals, whom the Franciscans would deny the power to overrule previous church law. John XXII put an end to that by simply denying ownership of any of the stuff the Franciscans claimed to be "only using".
I figured someone would. I was thinking of using a stone to break a nut or stand up a pot. If you leave the stone were you found it, it's not like you own the stone.
But then we're does it go from using something to owning something. Seems ownership would be more of a legal distinction or ownership is emotional attachment