Who "owns" a country? [closed]

Question

In corporations, the stockholders "own" the corporation. If you have your own business, you pretty much do whatever you like with the business.

However, if you're a manager working for a business, you are not free to uses the business money. You're an "agent", and the owners of the business is the "principal".

Both managers and owners have "power" of the business.

However, the manager "supposedly" manage the business for the benefit of owners or principals. Bribing a manager is an issue. Bribing a business owner is not.

If I come to a business owner and say, buy my widget instead and I'll give you 20% cashback/discount, that's just regular business deal. If I go to his manager and said, buy widget and I give you 20% cash. That's bribery.

An agent taking money from business to his own pocket is stealing.

At least, that's the impression I get.

Now, who owns a country country?

Am I correct to say that in democratic countries, the people "own" the country?

Has this ever been "formalized"?

Does everyone have equal share? Or what?

I know some constitution says that the "ultimate power" belongs to the people. However, nowhere does in my constitution say that the people "own" the country.

If the people do not own the country, why do we have corruption laws? What is wrong with a president using his power to get kickbacks and some voting bloc using his voting power to get welfare?

The latter is considered legitimate but the former is corruption. Both are using their powah to get something that benefit them.

Are there any philosophy or constitution or laws in country that more clearly define who "owns" a country?

Can countries/states be owned by somebody like corporations?

In the past, do king consider themselves as "owners" of a country? What about feudal lords below the king? Nowadays, are democracies "owned" by the people?

Possible benefits of clearly defining ownership for a state

1. Things like going IPO. A poor country can quickly get money and better government (2 things poor countries usually lack) if the state have owners.
2. If the states have owners, then citizenship/shareholdership can be bought and sold. Hence, citizenship will have monetary valuation.
3. The people can see how well the state is run by looking at the monetary valuation of their citizenship. A lot of people wanting to move to the state means valuation of citizenship will go up.
4. Some rent seeking can then be done to benefit legitimate owners of the state rather than corrupt officials that happen to be in power.
5. Only investors willing to pay money, instead of immigrants, have a say in politic. This will solve many problems democracies have like "do immigrants share our value?"
6. Most states acquire power and regions by invading or coup or war. Proper recognition of ownership may encourage state actors to peacefully buy and sell power and regions instead.

I understand that no states I know recognize ownership like the above. However, are there any philosophies or taught that revolve around seeing that somebody, citizens, kings, as legitimate owners of the state?

Answer 1

The analogy doesn't work. (So this is a frame challenge answer)

When I say "I own this pen" it is based the fact that I purchased the pen or obtained it in accordance with some code of law.

Similarly when I say "I own this company" it is within the framework of law that recognises and registers the existence of a "company". Thus all ownership is defined and determined within law.

But countries are above the law. The defining factor of a sovereign state is that it can determine the law. Countries may sign up to international "laws" but these don't define ownership.

On a football pitch there is the goal line. The location and properties of the goal line are defined by the rules of football. It would not make sense to ask "What is the goal line of a country" since a country is not a football pitch, it is not defined with the rules of football. Similarly, it does not make sense to ask "what is the owner of a country", since a country is not defined within a set of rules that define the concept of ownership.

Answer 2

This question would be better phrased as issue of legitimacy of government. At the core of your question lies issue of who, why and how is allowed to set rules within country.

Historically, until enlightenment legitimacy was usually derived from some variant of "Mandate of Heaven" or "Divine Right": god(s)-given right to rule.

During enlightenment, philosophical shift started happening. Novel idea appeared, stating that legitimacy of government is based on consent of governed and need for government to avoid chaos. Proponents of "social contract" argued that while in "natural state" people are free to do whatever they please, including murder, theft and rape, this is not a basis for working society, or society at all, necessitating giving up certain of those freedoms for safety from freedom of others. As such, within social contract government exists to secure "natural rights" (for example right to live) of citizens. Depending on flavour of social contract, government loses legitimacy when it loses ability to enforce laws, fails to provide aforementioned safety, fails to protect natural rights or any combination of the above. Illegitimate government should be overthrown by any means necessary, from voting to rebellion.

Idea of "social contract" is an overlap of philosophy of ethics, political philosophy and social philosophy. Within ethics, social contract was replaced by utilitarianism, idea that highest moral goal is maximization of happiness within entire population.

Hence we come to modern times.

Constitutions are supposed to safeguard "natural rights", democratic voting are supposed to represent voluntarity of social contract and for elected government, adhering to both is usually enough to claim legitimacy. Things get more interesting when we look at actual social policies. Is government which fails to protect physical personae (people) from acts of legal personae (e.g. corporations) illegitimate? Unlike USA, Western and Northern European governments include utilitarianism in their claim to legitimacy: extensive workers rights, social safety nets, progressive tax and higher equality are practical takes on 20th century utilitarianism, not present in 18th century moral philosophy. As such, by European standards, American government can be easily seen as partially illegitimate, due to failure to care for it's citizens and state of the society (Disclosure: this is a position I'm holding).

Now about dictatorships. It is rare for dictator to claim legitimacy through force, even if that's how position itself was claimed. Usually they claim that they represent will of the people while very deliberately not asking people what they want and not including any way for people to dissent or enact change. Regimes like Fascism and Nazism hypocritically stated that democracy means that 49% of people are forced to adhere to whims of 51% of, which somehow at the same time is both wrong, and makes it right for one dictator to rule everybody, because said dictator somehow knows what everyone wants.

Answer 3

No one owns a country.

Several people have different relationships to a country, some quite complicated.

But none of these relationships are analogous to ownership.

Even absolute monarchs and dictators did not own their countries. They came the closest to owning, but not quite there. They had duties, though no accountability. I have no duty to, say, a pencil I may own.

Answer 4

Depends on the country, but the general rule is that Monarchies are govenrments that are "owned" by a King or Queen or other noble individual who inherited the position and thus the Country. This is countered by a Republic which literally means "Matters of the People/Public", and the government is sort of like a company that has traded stock in that the people of that government have a stake in it's running and the government answers to the people.

It should be noted that not all Republics are are Liberal Democracies (Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a Republic. North Korea is a "Republic" despite the Kim family having a hereditary rule... they play a lot of word games to try and justify that.). Conversely, not all Monarchies are Absolute Monachies (UK and Japan both have royal figure heads who are mostly hands off on the day to day functions of their government. Japan has a very long history of this under the Shoganate system.) These Constitutional Monarchies are basically created by the Absolute Monarch allowing for a Democratic Government but still retaining some form of authority, albeit reduced. The Emperor of Japan has far less power than the Queen of England in what their respective powers are. Vatican City is considered the last True Absolute European Monarchy, despite the lack of an inherited successor from the Pope's family (he does name the Cardinals who elect a successor from among themselves, though a wider candidate pool is available.).

Answer 5

Whoever is powerful enough to maintain control over a given territory controls said territory. That's how it worked since the beginning of civilization and it's true to this very day. The only difference in the modern day is that countries have agreed amongst themselves to recognize each other's borders through organizations such as the UN. Therefore anyone attempting to seize a part of a foreign land by force would face a harsh reaction not just from the country in question, but also from the international community as a whole.

Within a particular country all ownership likewise lies with the whoever is strong enough to subdue all other living within the same territory. In Western democracies this power is dispersed amongst all adult citizens, who's ancestors have managed to overturn monarchs and dictators who have formerly ruled their countries. In a place like North Korea this power is restricted to a small group of politicians and generals who directly control the armed forces. In a place like Somalia the ownership is confined to whoever is the strongest warlord at the moment.

Answer 6

Nobody 'owns' a country.

Ownership implies the possibility of buying and selling. A house can be bought and sold. A business can be bought and sold.

Nations aren't bought or sold, or traded.

Answer 7

Who “owns” a country?

The State

In general, the state owns the country.

State as in sovereign state with international recognition by other states. The sort of entity that has membership of organisations such as the U.N.

In the past, for example in feudal times in Europe, the country (i.e. its land) was the property of the monarch. In modern times, when a state is taken over by a dictator, the distinction between state-ownership and personal ownership by the dictator can become blurred.

---

Ownership

You have to identify what it means to "own" a country.

If there is an international boundary dispute over some territory, it is the states which resolve the dispute by state sponsored diplomacy or by state sponsored use of force.

It is states which control the "ownership" of land within the borders of countries and which set laws which regulate the activities of people within the borders of countries.

In some countries land ownership by persons is not full ownership but a diminished form of ownership known as freehold. In such countries people own certain rights concerning usage of a plot of land but they don't really own the land itself. The state reserves ultimate ownership.

---

References

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_in_land