Not quite so, as this "natural" and/or "inherited" right to a certain piece of land was introduced and forced by very much existing real violence. Ownership of land did not just happen as a concept coming alive, people took and kept it by threatening other people. The very start of capitalism as a concept of possessing and accumulating more than you need is based on that.
I don’t disagree with what you say, but I also don’t see the difference. Modern society is threat. If you step on land you don’t own, what happens? Laws are meaningless if there is no consequence to breaking them, disobedience carries threat of consequence. Of course before and even outside human civilization the concept of “territory” existed and does, at the root of any credible claim to territory by animals in nature is violence, you will be hurt or killed if you violate this creatures claim.
The NFT differs only in one important way.
The NFT didn’t exist until we had the technology to make digital assets. Meaning that we are largely past the day where one can universally defend their claim to any property, land or otherwise, with violence and have that be acceptable and allowed. In simple terms, we didn’t go through a phase where digital piracy was something you likely would be shot for and by its nature it is hard to shoot someone stealing from you semi anonymously from…
.. possibly thousands of miles away. IP in general went through such a phase just like land- at various points in human civilization, as the Thomas Jefferson theft implication meme helps show, killing someone to take or protect an idea or intangible asset has been various levels of acceptable or practical, and even today it happens- corporate and state “secrets” and such are a couple examples to prevent the awareness or proliferation of information someone wants to claim “sole ownership” of. It isn’t like there is no threat in NFT theft- the same armed police force and massive government might that threaten to fine, incarcerate, or even kill you for violating another’s land rights does protect IP and will do those things as deemed prudent where IP law is violated.
Th thing to remember is that ultimately the law gets its power from violence. The tiniest crime pushed far enough with success will likely end in violence. A state needs authority to exist as it is just a concept. Legitimacy is needed. Flags and songs and official buildings and uniforms help along with serving other practical needs, but law is needed. For a state to have meaning it must have some measure of control. This is why you can SAY your home is its own nation, but you probably can’t operate as though it is. In most cases other means are used to compel obedience and enforce legitimacy- so you are caught speeding and lose your license. Loss of privileges and fines were the threat and they didn’t compel you. Let’s say you continue to drive and refuse to pay the fines, somehow avoid all the penalties of your transgression against authority and continue to do so…
At some point you’ll probably be arrested. If you completely disrespect and disregard the state authority, do not show up for court etc. you’ll likely be arrested eventually. If you refuse to be arrested force will likely be used. If you are able to resist that force a greater force will be used. If this cycle continues you get a “stand-off” that at this point generally requires both parties to be armed and violent, and you are unlikely to win. If there is sufficient force on the side of the dissidents, there is another tactic as we saw in part with recent “legalization” of certain drugs. That is to say- enough people felt strongly enough and continued to resist the authority of the state that it was not only individually politically advantageous to legalize, but since it had largely become acceptable practice and the law was essentially a lame duck at best and both a waste of time and money as well as a tool of liability for bias, by making the illegal legal, the state maintains..
.. authority and control while placating the population who by and large were already ignoring state authority- meaning that there is effectively no consequence to abolishing a rule that the majority of people do not follow or respect.
So I would say that it is true that land and NFT are conceptually the same, as are most personal and real property concepts. The idea of “ownership” is abstract, one can posses but one can only posses what they are capable of holding from another when another wants what they posses- in “nature” this means that you must have the strength or other adaptations to take and keep what you want. In society we use proxies, agents like police and such who generally can and will defend what their master authority tells them to. Any property claim not backed by the prevailing government is generally empty. So the place I would agree with your synopsis concerning NFT is where a specific NFT isn’t recognized as property by the government.
As an analogy, you can theoretically “buy” or “claim” Mars but the government, and really no government which adheres to the prevailing international treaties and resolutions on space, will recognize that Mara is property to own.
So any NFT which doesn’t fit the qualifications to be considered property, intellectual or otherwise, under laws concerning digital assets or art and such, is like a land deed for Mars. Your claim not only has no backing by a larger power like a state and its enforcers, but most larger powers will not recognize the legitimacy of your claim at all, and any attempts of your own to use force or threat to enforce your claim will likely see you at odds with the state machine of authority. In plain English, if you try to force someone to respect your ownership of an NFT on your terms you’ll probably be the one breaking a law unless that NFT has some IP or digital legal protections.
The NFT differs only in one important way.
The NFT didn’t exist until we had the technology to make digital assets. Meaning that we are largely past the day where one can universally defend their claim to any property, land or otherwise, with violence and have that be acceptable and allowed. In simple terms, we didn’t go through a phase where digital piracy was something you likely would be shot for and by its nature it is hard to shoot someone stealing from you semi anonymously from…
So I would say that it is true that land and NFT are conceptually the same, as are most personal and real property concepts. The idea of “ownership” is abstract, one can posses but one can only posses what they are capable of holding from another when another wants what they posses- in “nature” this means that you must have the strength or other adaptations to take and keep what you want. In society we use proxies, agents like police and such who generally can and will defend what their master authority tells them to. Any property claim not backed by the prevailing government is generally empty. So the place I would agree with your synopsis concerning NFT is where a specific NFT isn’t recognized as property by the government.
So any NFT which doesn’t fit the qualifications to be considered property, intellectual or otherwise, under laws concerning digital assets or art and such, is like a land deed for Mars. Your claim not only has no backing by a larger power like a state and its enforcers, but most larger powers will not recognize the legitimacy of your claim at all, and any attempts of your own to use force or threat to enforce your claim will likely see you at odds with the state machine of authority. In plain English, if you try to force someone to respect your ownership of an NFT on your terms you’ll probably be the one breaking a law unless that NFT has some IP or digital legal protections.