The answer to this is going to depend on exactly what you mean by "can" and "own."
Is it legal? No. That is slavery. Is it possible? Yes, it is possible to keep a captive and force him or her to do your will. It is even possible for a person to become a slave willingly and submit voluntarily to another. Is that "ownership," though?
Does "own" mean the legal right to possess, keep, and sell or dispose of at one's will? Then no, not if it has to be legal.
But there have been times and places when it was legal, as you well know, to claim ownership of another human being as property. And there are and have been many things done outside the law. If you define "own" in another way, however, and there is a lot of room for both gross and subtle variation in the meaning of that word, you may be describing a relationship that is possible and not illegal but that still involves ownership in some sense.
Chat with our AI personalities
Owning another person is called slavery. It was a common practice throughout humanity's history, but today slavery is regarded as morally abhorrent and is illegal in most parts of the world. Slavery is now only prevalent in the deepest and darkest circles of crime and savagery.
A:2
In some traditions, cultures and beliefs, women and children are considered the property of the dominant males. Some religions and their influence upon the laws of the land, dictates that women and children are the property of men.
Cultural relativism is the practice of understanding another culture on its own terms and using its own standards.
Self-righteous indignation refers to an excessive awareness of one's own virtuousness. It is a feeling that one is morally superior over another.
logrolling
The things that have killed the most of our population, aside from old age, are other people; we are the most dangerous entity to ourselves.
I think at first there were only local courts but then if one local person had a problem with a man of another city, neither the court of first man nor the court of second man's city could hear it because both disagree with the ruling that a court make for another city's person. To solve this they made state level courts. Some time later a case came up in which a man from one state filed a law suite for a man from another state. The same problem that we had with the local courts happens again here and both disagree with the ruling that both of those state's courts make. At last to solve this, they made federal courts to hear that kind of case in which two different states are involved. It's not the only kind of case that federal courts hear but it one of those types of cases that federal courts may hear. Hope you got it