Hmm, I wish I understood the Hume implies Locke paper!

My first reaction is to say that there are probably better ways of keeping track of ownership than resource theories, such as distributed consensus algorithms. Resource theories are good at expressing which things are possible and which ones are impossible for a single agent, which may be an individual, an entire society, or whatever else.

However, it *is* possible to develop multi-agent versions of resource theories, where each agent's (cap-)abilities are described by their own order. For example, we may have \$$\textrm{flint} + \textrm{wood} \leq_A \textrm{flint} + \textrm{fire} \$$ for agent \$$A\$$ who knows how to start a fire, but \$$\textrm{flint} + \textrm{wood} \not\leq_B \textrm{flint} + \textrm{fire} \$$ for agent \$$B\$$ who doesn't. This is secretly a special case of [enriched category theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_category). I don't know if there is any relation to ownership. I'll ponder it some more and will reply here if I can think of more to say.