<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><a href="http://www.noss123.com/">http://www.noss123.com/</a></p>
<br><p>Many things have existed that did not have an owner, sometimes called the commons.
The term "commons," however, is also often used to mean something quite
different: "general collective ownership" - i.e. common ownership.
Also, the same term is sometimes used by statists
to mean government-owned property that the general public is allowed to
access. Law in all societies has tended to develop towards reducing the
number of things not having clear owners. Supporters of property rights
argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources, due to
the tragedy of the commons,
while critics argue that it leads to the exploitation of those
resources for personal gain and that it hinders taking advantage of
potential network effects.
These arguments have differing validity for different types of
"property" -- things which are not scarce are, for instance, not
subject to the tragedy of the commons. Some apparent critics actually are advocating general collective ownership rather than ownerlessness.</p>
<p>Things today which do not have owners include: ideas (except for intellectual property), seawater (which is, however, protected by anti-pollution laws), parts of the seafloor (see the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for restrictions), gasses in Earth's atmosphere,
animals in the wild (though there may be restrictions on hunting etc.
-- and in some legal systems, such as that of New York, they are
actually treated as government property), celestial bodies and outer
space, and land in Antarctica.</p>
<p>The nature of children under the age of majority is another
contested issue here. In ancient societies children were generally
considered the property of their parents. Children in most modern
societies theoretically own their own bodies -- but they are considered
incompetent to exercise their rights, and their parents or "guardians"
are given most of the actual rights of control over them.</p>
<p>Questions regarding the nature of ownership of the body also come up in the issue of abortion.</p>
<p>In many ancient legal systems (e.g. early Roman law), religious sites (e.g. temples) were considered property of the God or gods they were devoted to. However, religious pluralism makes it more convenient to have religious sites owned by the
<span class="new">religious body</span> that runs them.</p>
<p>Intellectual property and air (airspace, no-fly zone, pollution laws, which can include tradeable emissions rights) can be property in some senses of the word.</p><br>