It belongs to whatever makes up the soul — not the body it empties, not the mind it is sold. Entirely his in the sense the law means, and not his in the sense people mean when they argue about it. Seattle proves both halves at once: he moved it, and the name, colours and banners did not go with him. What an owner holds and what people mean by my team are two objects — and it took a settlement to divide them.

The Questions · the collective · the collective soul

Whose team is it?

The owner bought it. The players are the ones out there. The fans were here before either. Three answers, argued forever, and all three are answering a question about the wrong thing.

It belongs to whatever makes up the soul — not the body it empties, not the mind it is sold.

Entirely his in the sense the law means, and not his in the sense people mean when they argue about it.

What this settles

Seattle proves both halves at once: he moved it, and the name, colours and banners did not go with him. What an owner holds and what people mean by my team are two objects — and it took a settlement to divide them.

What it leaves open

How far does a collective’s duty reach?

Raised in this footing and not answered anywhere in the work.

Not this question

What is a collective made of?

Also in this footing, and a different question. That one gives the seats. This one asks which seat the thing everybody is attached to sits in.

Also asked as

if a collective's soul can be leaned, then who gets to do the leaning?