Talk:Property/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

uses of the term

"The concept of property or ownership has no single or universally accepted definition. Like other foundational concepts which have great weight in public discourse, popular usage varies broadly." It's pathetic for an encyclopedia article to start out wishy-washy like that. Other encyclopedias have no problem taking a stand and defining it at the outset. RJII 03:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Land ownership

Land ownership redirects here. This is a special kind of "ownership right" and must be separated into its own article. At the moment this article is a Caesar salad and basically useless for an uneducated person.

I understand that this is a complex socio-economic issue and apologize for my uneducated opinion about the article. I came here with a very special problem: I noticed that landowner redirects to landlord, which is totally wrong. I started looking for a better target and found land ownership, which points here. But if I redirect landowner here (i.e., to Property (ownership right)), a possible reader will probably be bewildered (as I was).

So please, please make me at least a small stub Land ownership. mikka (t) 23:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am Going to delete first sentence

I hate the sentence that says "property has no universally agreed upon definition." Nothing outside of mathematics had a universlly agreed upon definition. I am going to research what oxford english dictionary says property is, in the context of property rights, and put it there instead... Just as soon as I get the energy that is... Or maybe I will just switch the first and second paragraphs... Or better yet someone else who is brave can maybe do it first... Mrdthree 22:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Found the energy to do it! Now the first paragraph is daring in its conventionalness. Rather than be beaten into openly declaring surrender by the complexity of issues in the world of public discourse, its yells I am simple common property. Now the declaration of 'I surrender' and 'wikipedians cant define property' is in the second paragraph. Maybe someone can do something useful withit.Mrdthree 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Right on. It's pathetic and always bothered me. Like you said, it revealed more about the confusion of Wikipedia editors than anything. A good encyclopedia takes a stand and provides a definition(s). RJII 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I removed the {{POV}} tag on the page. It was placed there by User:157.242.192.75 without edit summary or any apparent discussion on this page. I can't speak to the actual POV of the page, but feel there is a burden to explain your opinion when using this tag.--Bookandcoffee 20:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoover Institute Property Rights Book

Looks good. Has chapter that says "What are property rights?" [1]. SOmeone should read it nad make additions. Mrdthree 03:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Property a social convention?

The link to convention says that a convention is one choice selected and agreed by people among possible alternatives. Except for mythical tribes (who still have their own spears and loin cloths) property is a universal-- it exists in every culture at a minimum as personal property. I think property rights are conventional in the sense that those vary among cultures, but the fact of property does not. Mrdthree 05:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In common usage, property means "one's own thing" and refers to the relationship between individuals and the objects which they see as being their own to dispense with as they see fit.

it is meant not to describe a social convention like property rights but a phenomenal state or psychological orientation that corresponds to the sense of ownership and control. Doesnt every language have the possessive (my, yours, his hers?) it seems to me that property is minimally an innate emotional orientation towards objects. From the possession page an important thought is: possession does not always imply ownership. ALso this page may be redundant with ownership. THough its worth stating that property may include a notion of rightful possession and while the fact of ownership or possession may be universal, it may be that property assumes some ideas aboout property rights and therefore conventionality?Mrdthree 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC) suggested definition: Property-- objects rightfully possessed or controlled.Mrdthree 06:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A convention doesn't neccisarily imply the that alternatives exist, only that they are possible. It is a convention that people face each other when they talk to each other. Just because there are no groups that turn sideways or backwards to talk, doesn't mean that "facing each other while talking" is not a convention. Just because something is a near universal convention doesn't change that it is a convention - an agreed-upon norm.

I see the idea of property as a mapping (like arrows) between resources and the individual or group (the entity) that "owns" the resource. No, not every language has ownership words - I'll need to get references. Many societies and groups had no conception of owning land, for example, before western civilization. Possibly the correct word for this mapping is ownership - so I agree, this page may be redundant. If this page (property) refers only to the physical things that are "owned" then this is a different idea than the mapping that occurs between the resources and entities. The point that I think is extremely important is that humans have unquestioningly assumed that the property mapping is normal and appropriate, when the mapping really is just an agreed convention. Like all conventions (especially those that are not explicit), there can arise problems because not everyone has the same understanding of the purpose and execution of the convention. Moreover, different people assume the convention more strongly than others.

I would assert there is no innate human sense of ownership, but rather this is something we learn as young children, and it is a norm that is reinforced so strongly by society - so much so that it is rarely discussed.

The link from property to rights is also interesting, but not where I was going with asserting that property is a convention. --Jmd2121 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I wont argue that different cultures call different things property, my point is all cultures consider some things as property. I also think it likely that all languages have a possessive case used to recognize owned objects. SO I think that while there may be some flexibility in the mapping (I bet all cultures recognize personal property), I would think humans are 'designed' to make this mapping in some form; it seems an ethological imperative. In a sense much animal communication is about possession rights. I would be very interested if you could find a language that lacked a possessive case (or possessive pronoun). Mrdthree 23:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jmd2121, I would have to ask if you have children. Children are most definately hardwired with a sense of possession from their first year of life. Possession is not taught to any living creature, it just exists. Animals, especially mammals, are very possessive and territorial. That is why property rights is such an important issue because it is deeply tied in with basic human rights, the wars and revolutions that result from trying to deny this human right. As I have stated before, murder and rape are wrong because one is being deprived of their most personal property, and from this all just laws have evolved. To argue that such a profound thing is learned runs counter to ever natural law that exists in nature and humanity. Society does not reinforce this intinct, it degrades it at every turn, the cause of most civil strife is the lack of respect for property rights. Jcchat66 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do have children, an INFP and an ENTJ, and I've watched them develop and interact with other children. They have completely different norms regarding resources. One assumes sharing whenever possible, the other jumps in first (quickly) and assigns ownership immediately to fit within expectations.

I disagree people are "hardwired with a sense of possession" - they are hardwired to have their needs met from emotional pressures, and it often results in behavior that looks like possession and resource exclusivity. The concept of possessing to the exclusion of others results directly from fear that needs will not be met unless we have complete control over resources. I firmly believe that the majority of human nature is learned and people can change their norms extremely quickly. I need to think more on the animal behavior. --Jmd2121 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think fear is an important factor in ownership but I think training a person or animal to not fear losing things it likes is very difficult and perhaps undesirable (people need fear to weigh the costs of risky decisions). Mrdthree 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

From reading the article on conventional, I think its a little too strong to say "societal convention" I think the definition should be rephrased into something like:

property designates those objects, land parcels and other real or intellectual goods that are conventionally recognized as being rightfully possessed and owned by a person or group. This right establishes the possession as being "ones own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit within legal and societal conventions. That said I think I will check how that compares with different reference definitions. Mrdthree 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this much better than the current text. --Jmd2121 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A social convention is a dangerous phrase. Convention generally means contract, but contracts are only valid in society amongst individuals, because only inviduals can made a choice, a matter of free will to enter into it. Society cannot make decisions, is not a entity, and has no will of its own regardless of all the romantic notions of social ideals from Plato or stories like the Grapes of Wrath. If your going to use a word like convention, define it or use a better word, else there will be much confusion on what one is trying to convey.

Keep it simple. As it had been argued since the beginning of time, property is that which belongs to its creator. Artwork belongs to the artists. Labor belongs to the laborer. A story belings to its author. The fruits of the earth belongs to the farmer.

Jmd2121, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to convey about children. Child psychology, if that is your source for your claim, is notoriously ignorant of ancient history. Everything about human nature has been discovered and rediscovered countless times by many cultures, and it would be arrogant and irresponsible to dismiss the knowledge of ancient societies in favor of modern ideas. Children are overwhelming possessive, and learn before all else how to lie, steal, cheat, cause pain, and control and manipulate others. Every child is different of course, and learn things at different rates. They are not taught these things, they learn them either through hard lessons on their own, or taught later through a moral code that reflects these hard life experiences. We shouldn't have to learn the hard way that murder will deprive one of their freedom, but we do have to learn as children that taking someone's elses property may result in a bloody nose. Parents don't teach children bloody noses, experiences, or why they feel violated if another kid takes his toy. A person is not taught to feel violated when raped, they know deep down that they have been violated. That's hardwired emotions, and all just moral codes and laws reflect this. Jcchat66 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to see changed specifically? I think the moral argument of the right of the creator to control and dispense a product is strong but ultimately there is gray area and conventions are needed to find boundaries (if you made a nuclear weapon someone would rightfully think you had no right to possess the object). Mrdthree 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article is OK, but it starts off rather dry. Yes, there are gray areas of property rights (assuming this article also includes property rights along with just the concept of property.) More effort needs to be made on keeping it clear and concise. The creator has the primary right to property, but there are other factors to, like common law use of land. Land not used by others is considered abandoned after 7 years, and becomes the property of the person occupying and using it. Public safety, intention of use, etc., are other factors as well. That's when property law becomes complex. But property rights is simple. Even if someone owned a nuclear bomb, and that was deemed a public or national threat, just compensation for the rightful seizure of the bomb would still secure honor property rights. Jcchat66 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Property is the name given to those real or intellectual goods that are recognized as being the rightful possessions of a person or group. A right of ownership establishes a good as being "ones own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups and assures the owner of the property the right to use, dispose or dispense the property in the manner they see fit (within legal bounds). It is disputed whether the authority of property rights is rooted in a convention, moral or natural rights. Mrdthree 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it, more NPOV. Jcchat66 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it better too. Over time we will resolve the disputy of why humans have proprty. --Jmd2121 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear to all who read this later, maybe in the deep edit history of a page rewritten many times over, but still, for those who wish to find it, why I think the issue of convention is such an important issue for property. I don't this convention implies contracts - quite the opposite, convention occurs implicitly, when large groups agree so much that it is rarely discussed. I feel that if you dig deep enough into most all ills the human race faces - the central place you keep coming back to is resources... this issue of property. Every time we see conflict, somewhere there is a resource that people are fighting over. Often times it's a phyical thing, somtimes it's a time ordering, or an access issue. The crux of peaace for humanity rests on whether humans can get to a place where we loosen and eventually give up the idea of property, and, I feel it is central to the long term survival of the species. If it is the case that possessiveness and ownership are intractably interwoven into the nature of humans, then we will continue to fight over control of things until we all kill each other. Technology will give us the tools quite soon. The road to peace, as far as I can see, can only occur when humans consciously decide to realease attachements, and teach such a tradition to our children that the world CAN work without property and scarcity. --Jmd2121 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Jmd2121 has gone out on a limb promoting a personal opinion, I feel obligated, in defense of 6000 years of history, to answer. After all, we have literally been “digging deeper” for these questions since the beginning of time. And yet today, we have people with PhD’s that have effectively become aristocrats and holders of various titles of nobility, and their message of agnostic fanaticism and atheistic dogma that has infected society. So entrenched is this new nobility that they do not see that they have created a new religion of jihad. They style themselves as Nietzsche’s Supermen, the promoters of a ruling class that inspired Hitler and countless other tyrants and dictators. Time and time again this has happened throughout history, and yet every time this “nobility” thinks they have discovered something new about sociology and humankind, like Freud or Gramsci, and feel somehow justified to cause social unrest, even terrorism, to force their beliefs on others.

Your convictions have already been exercised in the past, this ideal of eliminating the notion of property. So fanatical has this cause been that it has resulted in more wars of more deaths in the Twentieth Century than all the rest of the conflicts of history combined. In no period in history were six million killed in gas chambers, or twenty-five million starved to death or shot in the back of the head over this political ideal, or the nearly fifty million wiped out in yet another country. At least a hundred million deaths have been directly and indirectly caused by the promotion of communism and socialism in all their many flavors and disguises of anti-Semitism. If you take your convictions to the extreme, than I would expect you to surrender your home, you car, and your bank account to those that need it more than you.

Oh, but who decides who needs what resources? Ah, this leads down a deeper vein than mere resources or social conventions, doesn’t it? It does have to do with resources … AND PREVENTING THOSE FROM USING FORCE TO SEIZE THEM. It is ultimately the elimination of POWER, not PROPERTY, that would prevent all wars. Power is the control over others, and this, beyond the shadow of any doubt, remains the sole cause of all social ills in all cultures. Ironically everyone has power over others in the beginning for necessary reasons: children. But then, somewhere along the line of history, people did not want to relinquish this power, and SLAVERY became s SOCIAL CONVETION throughout all of human history … right up until modern times. Slavery comes in many flavors. Eastern marriage, where a woman’s body is not her own (property rights violation). Virginity was the property of others to take, not the woman’s. Labor from indentured Irish immigrants who still are a bit irked with the British for this. African slaves, another social convention, who still suffer for it. The Hebrews and Jews have suffered many, many centuries seeking to avoid slavery … power over others … making them the ancient freedom fighters of history … freedom they still fight for in today’s headlines … the source of this conflict. The Hezbollah clearly showed that they wanted power of others when they kidnapped 2 Israelis and killed four others. And let us not forget the Celts, who resisted the Romans and their fanatical desire to control others, to the point of being reduced to islands in the sea … the same Celts who have brought us rule of law, jury trials, common law, the desire to seek knowledge and science … all of which the Romans crushed under their war-machines. The Romans had plenty of resources to keep their empire going for centuries more, not lack of resources.

All conflict is over property and resources? Absolutely not. Even Lenin knew that to eliminate property rights meant to eliminate any notion that an individual owns their own body as their property. Without property we could not wear clothes, or drive to the ballot to vote, or have a fishing pole to fish for food. The first moment we flex our fingers as children, the first touch of our skin in wonder, or that first time we see ourselves in the mirror, is the birth of the concept of property. Saying that the struggle for property causes all conflict is just as absurd as saying that water causes all drowning deaths. Does that make water bad? Of course the struggle over property and resources is part of war, for you need property and resources to make swords and guns and feed soldiers. But it is obviously the seeking of power over others that is the root cause.

Resources are infinite … just look to the stars. It is inevitable that humanity will do as all living species must do to assure survive … expand. Animals that expanded across many continents do not go extinct. Animals that exist on only one island or one sea suffer extinction all the time. Failure to expand is stagnation, and stagnation always leads to extinction according the theories of evolution. Life on Earth has only one hope before the sun collapses or a random cosmic body collides into this planet … and that is to spread life to other worlds. Living in tribes, or jousting with knights, or constantly arguing against property rights is not going to get us to the stars. Humans are the only resource that will assure the survival of all life on Earth by migrating to other worlds, and yet we demonize ourselves as a cancer.

Sorry, but this is not an opinion, but many self-evident truths discovered and rediscovered countless times by many people, and when acknowledged have resulted in the highest standards of living, happiness, and expressions of love. This fact pervades our culture and literature at every turn. See the Matrix movies. On the surface it seems to be a struggle of resources … humans being the resources of the machines. But the real problem was made clear … the denial of the right to choose … free will … and free will is the final argument against those that seek power over others. The Machines of the Matrix denied free will, not resources. Zion created its own resources. Another example? Lord of the Rings, the rings of power. The stories themselves were ancient beyond memory, merely retold by Tolkien. Did the Dark Lord seek resources and property? Only to build the machines of war for his real goal, power over others. And so he made the ring of power, not the ring of resources. This mythical story is rooted in an age-old conflict that has existed since the first cities were built.

It is the conflict over destiny and free will. Destiny, the excuse of tyrants to enslave men, to use religion, fear of the unknown, all to control the masses. Destiny is merely another tool to say one has no rights to improve their lot in life. And free will, the discovered axiom of the Hebrews, is the expression that everyone has the right to improve their life. Property and resources is nothing more than the background over which this conflict exists.

There is nothing wrong with the human species … it is just keeps getting hijacked by tyrants with a PhD. Jcchat66 06:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jcchat66 -- I don't think this public forum is an appropriate place for personal attacks. You don't know ANYTHING about me or my character or motivations, and saying my ideology has caused countless tyrants like Hitler is offensive. You do not understand me or my ideology to write that. I am well versed in the history of communism, and socialism and economic systems. I can only assume your post is driven by ignorance and your personal feelings and agenda. You have muddled and mixed up so many different ideas in the rant above in addition to numerous factual errors - it's not really worth the time to unravel it all. As always, I am interested to continue a dialog. I am not willing to continue this discussion here, (the topic drifts too far) and not if you persist in personal attacks. If you are interested in an adult discussion, please post on my talk page and we can set up a time for a public chat room (real time) discussion on property, power, control, and human nature after 8/14. --Jmd2121 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a personal attack at all, Jmd2121, but a general response to those that make statements very similar to yours ... statements that have been made by many people with an agenda. I do not know you, and I certainly did not suggest anything about your motivations or character. Are you the only one with a PhD? No, it's not about your personally at all. But you clearly stated an opinion that is NOT supported by historical fact, the notion that ownership of property is at the root of all social ills. Religious fanatics make the same claim about money and sex, why is your claim any different, or any less fanatical? My statements are based upon historical precedent, proven time and time again in history, and quite self-evident. Of course, if you think that I have made a statement in error, please enlighten me.

If you believe that this is not the place to discuss this (even though this is the discussion page) then why did you make your statement at all? You made a statement and received a response. That is not a personal attack, but a debate that you initiated. I have experienced this with many others that make statements like yours, and then complain about being challenged, as if all the world should clearly see their point of view. I expect people to listen to my responses with a grain of salt, think for themselves, research for themselves, and keep an open mind. And yet you accuse me of the same thing that you just laid on me “I can only assume your post is driven by ignorance and your personal feelings and agenda.” Really? Well now, I do believe that can be described as a personal attack, since all I was doing was defending 6000 years of historical experience from countless historians and many points of views. (Too mixed up and muddled I guess?) But there would have to be much more dialogue from you before I would begin to assume anything about your character, as you seemed to have already judged me. Please try to refrain from suggesting that I am ignorant or have an agenda, or that I am not capable of having adult conversations.

But let’s dispense with these perceived personal attacks. If you would like to debate, please send me a link to your talk page. I assure you that I am quite civil. Jcchat66 01:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

POV point

I was skimming the article and came across this:

Communism argues that only collective ownership through a polity, though not necessarily a state, will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore all, or almost all, private property should be abolished. However, the legacy of the tens of millions of people that have died for this cause in Soviet Russia and Red China suggests that such a system can only be maitained by brute military force by a small group of people that control all the land in trust for the people. This effectively makes such a system no different than feudalism.

Surely mine eyes are not so blinded by my own left-leaning politics to think that this is at least a little biased? From "Red China" to "tens of millions of people that have died for this [viewpoint]" to closing with a sentence that states communism, or at least its property beliefs, make it no different from a system I would venture to say many if not most self-identified communists believe to be in direct opposition to their own beliefs, this bit seems to me to break many conventions of Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general. Am I crazy? --Jammoe 04:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts of history are not POV. These were real events that happened for specific reasons based upon a point of view then in history, but that does not make that fact itself a POV. As far is communism and feudalism is concerned, it is simple to break these systems down to their most basic components devoid of all points of views (aka ideology). Communism and socialism are systems of control over resources/property by a very few people, thus feudalism as defined. Medieval Europe is only one of many historical examples of feudalism, but seems to be the most popular with its knights and notions of chivalry. Most tribal systems are feudal as well, as once again resources are controlled by a very few number of people, or a chieftain. Only the very point of view itself (ideology) gives them deeper meanings to justify their causes. Feudalism has no justification, it merely comes into existence naturally in absence of any other system, and does not require religion or ideology to fucntion, but merely power over others. As new civilizations come about from a collapsed social system, feudalism also begins to be replaced by more complex systems, and is sometimes replaced entirely by allodialism (private property) and various democracatic systems. It is assumed that a republic or a democracy are not feudal, but once again this is false. The Venician Republic and most of the republics of South America are classic feudal states, as it is a dictator, not the people, that control most resources. However, if you feel you can add to the understanding and knowledge of the different point of views regarding property, please do so. Perhaps there is a better word than feudal to define the concept of aristicratic resource control. Jcchat66 05:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the historical facts, I'm well aware of this, and also that they have relevance to the discussion. But I don't believe the manner in which they were included suggests a fair angle towards the viewpoint. Also, it should be blantantly clear to anyone familiar with Communism and Marxism that they very specifically oppose aristocracy, or at least intend to. The eventualities of occurances of a belief or set of beliefs do not define the beliefs: to dismiss Catholicism as a violent religion because of the Spanish Inquisition is likewise absurd, certainly in an encyclopedic summary of its beliefs on violence. The section I've noted attempts to define the Communist position on private property: namely, to simplify, that it should be abolished. To then say that this amounts to feudalism, or even something similar, directly contradicts this position, as feudalism is almost always understood to be a system of possession. It's certainly arguable that most or all examples of state Communism have amounted to brutal control by a government ruling class, but this is not at all the same as saying that this is the favoured position of most or all Communists, which I think is strongly implied. I'd rewrite it myself but I can't trust my own views not to taint how I write it, and I can't find a good source material to write from. It definitely needs reworking though. --Jammoe 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeds speak louder than words. "The eventualities of occurrences of a belief or set of beliefs do not define the beliefs ..." This is not true, and quite contrary to the scientific method. Like any experiment, which Marxism certainly is, the repeated and consistent results of an experiment is the sum of that experiment. The results of a belief system, no matter how innocent or virtuous it may have appeared, may have completely opposite results. Criminals argue this case all the time to avoid punishment: that their actions had a different result than what they intended. Does that make them innocent or any less guilty? Does that mean that bank robbers can argue that no one would have been killed had everyone cooperated? That is exactly what the communist of Russia could claim; that had the population cooperated in surrendering their rights and their property that no one would have been killed. So I would contend that the occurrences of a belief does define the belief.

Therefore, the true nature of communism and Marxism is feudalism, regardless of what they think that belief should result in. Feudalism in itself is neither good nor bad, so there was little basis for its objection anyway, especially since the Russian and Chinese revolutions were successfully implemented within feudal empires. This was not because they were contrary systems as if often believed, but because they were similar systems if you strip away the ideology. Feudal systems can evolve into more complex social systems such as fascism, communism, capitalism, etc. All political and social systems involve possession in one form or another. Communism believes it should lie with the people collectively, feudalism with an aristocracy or oligarchy, and alodialism with individuals. One of the very natures of all living entities is possession of property, the very essence of this article at the center of ALL social systems. How can any living thing live without owning the cells of its form, or exist without its natural possession of water or food? There is no such thing as non-possession of property ... unless there is no life at all. Likewise, individuals must own property to survive. It makes sense then that communist countries result in no life, diminished survival rates, environmental nightmares, murder, rape, and a miserable unhappy existence. That is the end result of that belief system. Religions are not immune to this fact either, and the results of each belief system reflects its true nature just the same. With most religions the results are both negative and positive, sometimes more positive, sometimes more negative. But with communism it has been entirely negative as a matter of historical record. Saying that communism is feudalism is actually being as NPOV as possible in light of its horrid history and opposition to nature.

But articles can usually be improved and we should all be open to this. Jcchat66 03:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased Links

I have deleted a link that was titled "Private Property and Communism."

The theory of communism remains unproven, original research that has no place here. Though it must be mentioned as a theory for NPOV, and history must acknowledge the attempts to install this theory into society, a link to the actually text of Marx an Engle unnecessary, especially if that link is directed to a site that PROMOTES this theory in a factual manner, as Marx and Engle clearly do. It's mere mention as a social theory is enough. All links should be reviewed to this end. Jcchat66 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the theory of communism is not original research in the sense meant by the Wikipedia policy. It is acceptable to link to a site the explains a theory, even to one that promotes it. WP:NPOV applies to articles on Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 01:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Explaining and promoting a theory are very different concerns. One is for an encyclopedia with the intention to expand knowledge, and the other is for politcal agendas, religious fanatics, and warmongering. A link to a more concise definition of the idea is needed, not an article that pushes and promotes a fanatical point of view. Sorry, but there is no knowledge to be gained from the theory of communism, and it receives too much undo attention when more practical and peaceful and civilized concerns are neglected. The link gives the false impression that the theory is important, when it had already been dismissed as a fraud like the flat-earth theory.

Do we need a link to the flat-earth theory? Jcchat66 00:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above, this is a matter of undue weight. WP:NPOV The link would be appropiate for the article on communism, but not on property. I should have clarified more of the reasons the link was deleted, but it should be quite obvious. The Wiki policies clearly discourage the use of text OR LINKS that promote a point of view instead of present the facts. Jcchat66 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually we have a whole article on Flat Earth Theory. The problem appears to be that you believe that the theory of communism is "fanatical" and therefore shouldn't be covered. How about we let readers draw their own conclusion instead of you deciding for them? My personal belief is communism is incorrect and dangerous. However it does deal with property and its had a lot of influence in the world, for good or ill. From a historical perspective, if from no other, understanding communism's view of property is important and exactly the sort of material an encyclopedia should be covering. Communism has had a real impact on how many people perceive and discuss property and there are significant countries that still attempt to operate a communist policy on property rights. This is a very important subject that we cannot afford to brush under the carpet. Gwernol 21:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but drawing one's own conclusion is exactly what the more extensive article on communism is for, which a short paragraph and link is provided for already on this article. That will suffice. It is interesting how defensive people become when facts are pointed out. How easy it is to dismiss the truth as someone's slanted point of view. This has nothing to do with being for or against communism, it has to to with keeping various articles clean and concise so that people can achieve a better understanding of the subject matter. No one is brushing anything under the rug, or trying to decide anything for anyone. The link just does not fit. Look at the rest of the links, they all have to do with a status quo, relatively common point of view regarding the historical background of property. The link to Marx and Engle pushes something entirely different.

No, communism needs not be brushed under the rug, nor ignored, nor forgotten. But because it deals with property does not validate it any further than a brief mention. Everything social structure has to do with property, and there are entirely too many religious, ideological, and philisophical points of view to mention here. Where are the links regarding the Catholic position on property? The Judaic? Hinduism? Muslim? What about pagan perceptions of property? How many links are we going to need for such a basic concept? Thus, why is communism given a link and not the rest? That is undue weight.

As far as you argument that communism, Marxism, etc, have influenced history and have greatly effected world events, that is still very much an opinion. As I have argued before, if one strips down these systems from their ideologies, one will find that they are no different than other ancient systems of feudalism. The Russian Revolution, for example, would have most likely occured regardless of what ideology took power, for it had been brewing for quite some time without any help from Marx. Socialism did not have to exist for the German Empire to wage war, it would have done so anyway. If anything, communism greatly crippled the Russian nation and prevented them from becoming a far more powerful republic than they are today. China is a good example, for though they profess to be a communist country, in practice they are extremely capitalistic. Their constitution defends private property, as well as the common law of Hong Kong. Cuba? Cuba is an outright autocratic monarchy with a de facto royal family. So no, I for one do not believe that communism had any significant effect on world history. I strongly believe that hundreds of years from now it will be regarded as an intrument of psychological warfare, not a legitimate social institution. Terrorists do not need such social labels or religion to murder millions, as history has proven time and time again. But this last paragraph is merely an opinion, though largely based on historical merit, to help demonstrate why one of hundreds of ideologies regarding property need not be overly stressed for the very reasons that Wiki policy has already addressed. Jcchat66 06:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Apperently the link has to be deleted for there to be a proper debate. Instead of restoring the link, why don't you request a third party opinion, inteady of assuming vandalism or prejudice. Perhaps the monitors need monitoring? Jcchat66 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Added in "Use of Term"

I added how Karl Marx used the term, since it is drastically different in his writings from what most people think of private property. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KurtFF8 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

There is already a mention of socialism and communism with regards to property, which already hang by a thread. There is no need to place undue weight to one person over many other, more qualified persons of history. Jcchat66 19:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of article from Libertarianism category.

This article does not belong in the Libertarianism category. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization at "Some general guidelines" 2 and 8. Property is not an inherently libertarian concept or topic and does not fit in the category any more than it would fit in categories for Marxism, capitalism, anarchism, socialism... take your pick.

Drake Dun 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cyrus Cylinder

I am going to strike the mention of the Cyrus Cylinder for being probably inaccurate.

The Wikipedia article on the cylinder links to this site:

http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html

Livius.org describes itself as a site for "articles on ancient history", and does not appear to have any ideological agenda. A WHOIS search on www.livius.org indicates that the site is owned by "Livius" in Virginia. The article on the Cyrus Cylinder is attributed simply to "Jona". It has this to say:

The cylinder played an important role in the imperial propaganda of Shah Mohammad Reza Palavi... The Shah tried to prove that the secular Iran with religious freedom that he wanted to promote had existed before, and in this context, the Cyrus Cylinder has been called the "world's human rights charter"... However, the idea that the Cyrus Cylinder plays a role in the history of human rights, has turned out to be quite persistent, and because the text itself does not enable the interpretation, a fake translation has been made that can still be found on many places on the internet and was, for instance, quoted by Shirin Ebadi when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.

Livius.org's article on the cylinder includes a link to a full text translation of both fragment A and fragment B. I read it and was unable to find anything regarding property rights.

I looked around on the Internet for the allegedly fake translation. I was unable to find it in its full text, but I found excerpts from it in one article, which can be found here:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php

Iranchamber.com appears to be a site dedicated to Iranian culture and history. A WHOIS search indicates that the domain name is registered to the "Iran Chamber Society", operating out of Amsterdam. The author of the article goes unidentified. The site as a whole does not exhibit any obvious systemic bias, but the article on the Cyrus Cylinder reveals a clear political agenda:

This is a confirmation that the Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could be considered superior to the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly. The Human Rights Manifesto looks very interesting in its kind regarding the expressions and composition, but the Charter of Freedom issued twenty three centuries before that by the Iranian monarch sounds more spiritual... Comparing the Human Rights Manifesto of the French National Assembly and the Charter approved by the United Nations with the Charter of Freedom of Cyrus, the latter appears more valuable considering its age, explicitness, and rejection of the superstitions of the ancient world... it is now kept in the British Museum and it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the most precious historical records of the world.

The excerpts from this translation, or fabrication as the case may be, do include text about property rights:

And until [sic] I am the monarch, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and [sic] landed properties of the [sic] others by force or without compensation.

The Cyrus Cylinder is owned by The British Museum, which has a brief article about it on their site:

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=OBJ4931

Unfortunately, their article does not address this topic directly, but it does say this:

This cylinder has sometimes been described as the 'first charter of human rights', but it in fact reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms.

In view of the information to hand, I am going to strike the mention of the Cyrus Cylinder from this article.

I have sent the following e-mail to the British Museum at collectionenquiries@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk:

Dear Sir or Madam:

While poking around on Wikipedia recently, I ran into an article on the Cyrus Cylinder, which includes an external link to this site:

http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html

This site indicates that the conventional wisdom that the Cyrus Cylinder is a "charter of human rights" is false, and is actually the result of a fabricated translation and a propoganda campaign in Iran. The article includes a link to a full text translation of both fragments A and B which, according to the site, is an accurate translation.

I was not able to find the allegedly fabricated translation in its full text on the Internet, but excerpts from it appear here:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php

Can the British Museum confirm or deny the statements in the article at livius.org?

Thank you for listening to my question, and thank you in advance for any efforts involved in responding to it.

Sincerely,

Drake Dun

If they deny the statements at livius.org, I will restore the deleted text.

Drake Dun 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone caugth this. A casually study of Persian history should have made this suspect to begin with. Jcchat66 20:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... my own suspicions were aroused not in view of the locality, but in view of the time. If you read the text it sounds exactly like the nonsense that the U.N. pumps out now. " I prevent unpaid, forced labor... Such a traditions [sic] should be exterminated the world over." Uhuh. In the 6th century B.C. What kind of clowns do we look like? Or the reference to "movable and landed" properties, which is transparently modern. The fact that the English is terrible doesn't help its credibility as a genuine translation, either. Drake Dun 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Significant edit

I recently made a significant edit (considered "sweeping" by someone) to this article, which was quickly reverted. You can see the difference between the previous version and my version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Property&diff=97767532&oldid=97295359

The person who reverted the article indicated in his change description that there needed to be a discussion before the changes were made, and that few of the changes were justified.

I am not aware of any policy that non-trivial edits all have to be discussed before being made, but I guess I have no objection to that. Consider this my official talk page proposal to make those changes, absent a coherently stated reason not to. What parts do you object to?

As for the idea that few of the changes are justified... well, this is sort of asking the same question. What parts are bad?

There are definitely changes in there that I put in because of POV issues. I am happy to talk about those in particular detail. But the majority are directed to English and to raw factual problems with the article.

For example, the first sentence of the article implies that real property and intellectual property are the only types of property. I think my change, which listed real, personal, and intellectual property as a non-exhaustive list of types is an obvious improvement.

I deleted an entire passage which indicated that the intellectual property rights familiar to us in the West in the 20th century (1) have been and are universally accepted by world cultures, and quite astoundingly, that (2) IP was the original type of property and that all other types of property came from it. This is... well, let's just say that I would want to see it backed up with citations.

I corrected quite a few English problems, including many instances of incorrect capitalization.

Anyway, the long and the short of it - please identify the parts of my changes you object to specifically and state why you object to them. I will put the ones you don't object to back in, and then we can talk about the rest.

Drake Dun 06:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Drake Dun, though many of your improvements may have merit, the deletion of an entire paragraph is questionable, especially when one took great pains to keep it as NPOV as possible, and NOT use Western concepts of property. The reason one should not make sweeping changes is not because of policy, but because if something is disagreed with, then all changes are reverted instead of just the one change.

As you state on your uder profile: "Bias in research and writing can be offset only to a certain degree by intellectual integrity and a commitment to neutrality. At a certain point the attempt to curtail bias fails, and carried further it becomes counterproductive. Opinions become more carefully hidden instead of less pronounced."

Well, that is exactly what I was aiming for with the paragraph you deleted. The notion of property does not come from religion, law, philosophy, etc. It simply exists, and is necessary, as food and water. Jcchat66 16:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I will take that as an expression of your objection to the deletion of that paragraph. You did not identify any other changes which you found objectionable, so my first impulse was to restore all of my changes except that one paragraph without discussion, in accordance with my previous comments. I have the distinct feeling that this quickly lead to a revert war, however, so instead I am going to go change by change and take my best guess about which ones you will object to, given what I know about your view on this article. I will return here and mark off each change which I do not enter so that we can talk about them.

I want to urge you to read Wikipedia's policy pages. Some of your statements lead me to believe that your understanding of them is not very developed. The fact that an opinion is held very strongly, or can be supported with good reasoning, or is very popular does not make it suitable material for a Wikipedia article. The changes we are talking about now are only the first of a great many that I want to make (some of which will involve substantial addition of content) and it would be good to hammer out an understanding now.

This criticism expressed, I want to avoid misunderstandings by also saying that I do not detect any bad faith or intentional underhandedness coming from your way.

Be back in a bit with that change list.

Drake Dun 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I restored all the changes I figured you wouldn't object to. You can see the differences here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Property&diff=98212981&oldid=97991517

I am pretty sure there will be no controversy here, but please give it a look over.

The changes I did not enter, because I expected you to object, are listed below and the reasons I want to make them given.

Current text: "It is disputed whether the authority of property rights arises from social convention, morality or natural law."

To this I had appended ", and by a historical minority whether it even exists". The problem is that the way it is stated now, it is either vague (which it would still be after my change, actually...) or in violation of the NPOV rule. Illustration: "It is disputed whether a person has a moral right to have an abortion because of natural law, or instead because of public policy." Implicit here is that a person has a moral right to an abortion. It is equally inappropriate to so imply that property rights are natural or inalienable. If you feel that adding the clause I proposed unduly highlights the admittedly minority position that property rights do not exist, we could try this instead: "Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for it in morality or natural law."

The deleted paragraph

"In the broadest and simplest sense, spanning history and cultures around the world, property may be defined as the fruits of creative work. It is almost universally accepted that artwork belongs to the artist, or literature belongs to its author, or an invention belongs to its inventor. From this comes most, if not all, ancient and modern notions of property rights."

This states that (1) the full range of what are now customary intellectual property rights, including patents, is universal both geographically and historically and (2) that IP was the first form of property and that all other forms of property come from it.

Unless I am sorely mistaken, this is untrue. Assuming that I am sorely mistaken, it is sufficiently surprising information that it requires a citation. Otherwise it is in clear violation of the no original research rule. There may by POV issues here as well, but I don't think we need to touch those.

Current text: "Ayn Rand, who did not wish to be called a libertarian"

It's a little odd to call Rand a libertarian in the article if she said she wasn't... It looks either POV or like original research. I was trying to compromise when I wrote "Ayn Rand, who many consider a libertarian in spite of her rejection of this label". Something needs to happen with it.

Current text: "If you own your life, it follows that you own the products of that life, those products can be traded by free exchange with others."

To this I had prepended "Libertarians, among others, hold that". The article must present this as a view and not a fact. Arguable, it already does so, since it shows up under the heading for libertarian views. If we take that approach, however, the other views set forth in the same section must follow a similar pattern, and not take additional qualifiers. Otherwise we are back to POV. Which brings us to the next edit...

Current text: "[The communist] argument is centered mainly on the opinion that"

See above. The word "opinion" here is probably inappropriate in any case, since it carries a negative connotation. It is certainly inappropriate when other views are set forth in expressions that present them as fact.

Current text: "Of course, most socialists believe in the use of personal property"

This is original research, and therefore inappropriate. Its obvious purpose is to make socialists look bad, but even if that were not the case, it would not belong.

Current text: "Several of the most influential intellectuals who responded to these three trends and rethought the whole issue of private property were English."

This nice little piece of anglophilia is not relevant, or if it is somehow relevant, that relevance is extremely unclear given the current text. It should be stricken.

Current text: "Sir Robert Filmer, reached conclusions much like Hobbes', although chiefly through Biblical exegesis and, it must be said, without anything akin to the intellectual depth of a Hobbes or a Harrington."

"although chiefly through Biblical exegesis" clearly carries the meaning that biblical exegesis is inferior to the means (reason?) that Hobbes used. I could not agree more heartily, but this is in violation of the NPOV rule. "It must be said"... Well, no. It need not be said. In fact, it must not be said on Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of POV.

Current text: "Among contemporary political thinkers who believe that human individuals enjoy rights, among which are the right to own property and to enter into contracts..."

With the comma after "rights", the only literal reading of this sentence is that the right to own property is necessarily a human right. Even if the comma is removed, that is the likely meaning. Therefore this is in violation of the NPOV rule. There are probably other problems here, too, but for the moment I am content with the text I proposed:

"Among contemporary political thinkers who believe that human individuals enjoy rights to own property and to enter into contracts..."

Current text: "The living human body is, in most modern societies, considered something which cannot be the property of anyone but the person whose body it is. This is in contradistinction to chattel slavery. The same view is generally taken of the human mind. This might be contrasted with thought police. It also presents theoretical problems for societies that aim to abolish all property (if you do not own your own body, then what rights do you have?)."

This may be in violation of NPOV, but since I expect you will disagree, I will just point out that even if it were not it would still constitute original research, complete with a newly crafted rhetorical question. We don't need to go there.

General problem with original research

There is a serious problem in the article with original research. Actually, I think it is a bigger problem in the article than POV. I am a little reluctant to touch it, because really most of the articles on Wikipedia have substantial original research issues and I do not want to rock the boat. There are, however, some instances in this article that I simply cannot let pass. I mention it now because they are likely to be my next target.

An example: "In every culture studied ownership and possession are the subject of custom and regulation, and "law" where the term can meaningfully be applied."

Anyway. This is my statement of reasons for the changes I propose... technically unnecessary in most of the cases since the policy is that the burden of justification falls upon the person who adds or reverts, and most of my changes are deletions. If you do not want me to proceed with any of these changes, please give detailed and convincing reasons why I should not. Thanks.

Drake Dun 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it has been a day plus change, so I am going to enter those changes. If you object to them, please revert only those changes to which you object. Identify them here and provide arguments for why they should not be included.

Drake Dun 05:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I put back a paragraph that was deleted yet again, and hopefully improved it. There needs to be a general outline of why property exists, and what probably led to property rights. If anyone can make it better, please do so. Jcchat66 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still unhappy with this paragraph, although it is a definite improvement. You will recall that my objections were that this paragraph says that (1) the full range of what are now customary intellectual property rights, including patents, is universal both geographically and historically and (2) that IP was the first form of property and that all other forms of property come from it. Objection (2) is adequately addressed by your deletion of the last sentence. Objection (1) remains, however. This is a question of raw historical fact. Certainly patent rights, for example, are a decidedly modern development?

"There needs to be a general outline of why property exists, and what probably led to property rights" basically calls for speculation. Why do we need that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drake Dun (talk • contribs) 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay, I have thought this over, and I am deleting the paragraph without waiting for a response. The point about IP has already been raised, and it has not been responded to. Also, the article must not endorse the position that the labor theory of property is recognized as such as the source of property everywhere, and always has been. This is simply not the case, as will be revealed by even a casual reading of Locke's Second Treatise, or a few questions directed to a randomly selected person without philosophical inclinations. I want to cooperate with people but I cannot go on writing long explanations for my actions and then having my edits summarily reverted with one sentence justifications that do not address the points I have raised. Drake Dun 11:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Drake Dun, this is not speculation, this is simple fact. No civilization could exist with some notion of property and one's right to it. The reason one feels they own something is not subject to debate. The paragraph was there before you deleted, you have the burden of proving it does not belong, and you have not done so. I make no mention of patent rights, I sure people that have created something for the benefit of someone else were acknowledged and rewarded in other ways in history. But it is quite obvious that such rights have always existed in history. No matter how primitive, no matter how advanced a society, property rights exists for a reason. Why would we not want to address that reason? Even speculation on the reason would be beneficial, and certainly without endorsing some politcal viewpoint.

It is not enough to delete something for the reasons you state. You have the burden of proving it does not belong. Please do so. Jcchat66 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material... Any edit lacking a source may be removed" Please provide a reliable source for the entire scope of this sentence or edit or delete it. If you choose to edit it in a fashion such that it still implicates the labor theory of property, please source it.

Preferably it should be sourced with some kind of study, history, or something like that - and not with a book that has text on the back like "[Author's name] proves with unmatched clarity why all of us should be libertarians."

Also, I recommend Locke's Second Treatise on Government and some of the articles on Wikipedia about various types of property for reading. It should become very apparent to you that the labor theory of property is not some kind of human universal, which might make this dispute go away.

Drake Dun 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still want that paragraph to go. Should I bring in a third party to comment on the process, or something? Drake Dun 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I have deleted the paragraph yet again. At this point, if you want to restore it, I think we should bring a third party into the discussion. If you do not respond to these comments I will assume that you assent to the deletion of the paragraph. Drake Dun 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Being that I think it does more good than harm for the paragraph to remain, at least until it could be better improved, I disagree. But I do not have the time to defend it. I am disappointed that a paragraph would be deleted by the request of ONE person. If it were generating argument and discontent, that would be a different story. None the less, I will have to address it later. Jcchat66 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles relating to land ownership and tenure

Hi, I'm raising this here as Wikipedia currently has several articles covering very similar ground in a not very organised fashion, all of which are rather quiet and some not very appropriately named, and discussion on this page appears a bit busier. In particular:

• Land tenure appears to cover mostly historic feudal concepts of ownership, rather than the broader scope implied by the article name - perhaps rename article to Feudal tenure?
• Land ownership and tenure is basically just a list of different types of title in land, without much detailed discussion given the article name suggests it should also have broader scope;
• Title (property) discusses the principles of an owner's interest in property (not just land) in quite an academic manner, but lacks detail on different forms of ownership.

Any suggestions? I'd personally quite favour merging all three, but perhaps consensus could be found on reorganising things before I go ahead with controversial changes? Furthermore, Interest (disambiguation) makes no reference to an interest in land, which should probably be included with a redirect. DWaterson 19:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the spirit of this article about property in general, or perhaps what the foundation of the notion of property is, not just about land or one specific type of property. Jcchat66 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Land tenure" and "Land ownership and tenure" should be merged together. "Title (property)" should be merged into "Property (law)". I do not think any of the three articles you mentioned should be merged into this one. Drake Dun 04:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New Article on Property Rights in economics

This page is very nice. I have just created a new article Property rights (economics) that may be of interest to the editors here. If you have time please take a look at the article and provide any feedback or edits. The page links to this page, but I would also like to see this page linked to the economics article. I'll see where it might be useful to add a link from here to there soon.

Joel Kincaid 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the content you have there is good, but honestly there are already too many articles on Property. How do property rights with relation to economics warrant a separate article from an article covering property generally? Property really only needs two articles. One for the concept in general, and one for property law. Might you consider moving some of your content into this article? Drake Dun 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Property in Philosophy

I intend to enlarge the philosophy section to include a sub-section Socialist Critique and Replies, with sections on Charles Comte, Pierre Proudhon, Frederic Bastiat, and Herbert Spencer. Also, Murray Rothbard needs to be in the Contemporary section. You are invited to assist. Hogeye 06:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• The contemporary philosophy subsection is severely lacking. What about Nozick, Rawls, Waldron, Schmidtz? Contemporary debates on this issue focus greatly on their idea.
  • I would humbly suggest to cut a separate Philosophy of property article. This one is already huge. mikka (t) 23:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms: While we are talking contemporary, you might aswell include De Soto "The Mystery Of Capital" (2000). In his book De Soto constructs an arguement for the benefits of making property into "private" property and also how private property naturally arises to promote economic stability.

I agree with M&Ms here. Since the "philosophy of property rights" is being so heavilly debated now, let's keep it balanced at least.

But perhaps "property" should be seperated from "Property Rights" and then we can discuss philosphy. Property still has an exact definition in all dictionaries and does not need to be elaborated on. Property Rights is something constantly coming udner attack, especially in the last two centuries.

• • • AZ: I was fascinated to read the following passage in this section:

Much rethinking was necessary in order for land to come to be regarded as only a special case of the property genus. This rethinking was inspired by at least three broad features of early modern Europe: the surge of commerce, the breakdown of efforts to prohibit interest (so-called "usury"), and the development of centralized national monarchies. There was no citation or reference, and I could not figure out how the breakdown of efforts to prohibit interest would lead to rethinking about property rights. i would be very interested in documentation relating to how these three factors led to expansion of the concept of property from land to others. Asaduzaman 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed the Communist views on Private Property

The communist definition of private property is, and only is, the means of production. This is what they seek to put into common ownership. I edited the section to reflect this. (Demigod Ron 02:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Property - Logic/philosophy/ontology

I think this article misses the great philosophical debates of the spiritual franciscans vs franciscan community in C14th over the ownership and usage of property. This influenced many of the later philosophers notions of what property is and what rights are attached to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.199.75 (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Property and quality

Quality is the substance that makes an object/entity what it is. A quality is inherent, a property is relative. A quality is typical of the whole, a property is typical of a part.

Property is relative. Quality is absolute. An object can survive without some properties, but not without its quality.

A property is comon in all members of a class. Properties are of two kinds. Group 1 property shows the limits (contains constraints). If they disappear, the object itself disappears.

They are substantial (not substance) properties. The constraints here are not the same as the specifics of an object, though.

Group 2 properties are simple properties. They do not delimit objects. It is the quality that makes a difference among objects.

The number of qualities of an object is endless.

A particular quality may be the property of different objects, and vice versa.

A quality itself is a propetry, it is relative as any other property, i.e. it does not depend on the object that it is a quality of, but on other objects associated with that object.

Or: what is a quality for one object is a property only for another. (Example: an ability to do something – with an amateur and a professional).

A quality is not complete specifics. Therefore we have a separate sense for it (quality). If two substantial properties make up a quality, then combined, they are again a substantial property. The complete set of qualities is what you call the specifics.

Apogr 20:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

see also "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Substance_theory"

This page was last modified 20:36, 9 Jun 2005. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).

bundle of rights

1. control use of the property
2. benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
3. transfer or sell the property
4. exclude others from the property.

I think we are missing a few things here. What about the right to modifys and destroy the property ('abusus' from the 'Roman Dominium' concept)? Making this distinction, we should then include the 'Germanic Patrimonium' concept of property as well as it does NOT contain the right to modify/destroy. As this right has links to sustainable use of resources, I think we should include it somehow. Unfortunately, I am not an expert and have not found a good source for reference on this except some slides from a lecture. Anyone who can help with this? Madmaxx 09:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the traditional _liberal_ conception of property as a bundle of right, Honoré (1961; pp. 113-128) articulates a “full” liberal concept of (private, exclusive) ownership into eleven necessary conditions: the owner of an object X has: (i) the right to possess X; (ii) the right to use X; (iii) the right to manage X – to determine who can use X and how it is to be is used; (iv) the right to the income, to the benefits of allowing others to use X; (v) the right to the capital value of X - the right to alienate X through sale in the market; (vi) the right to security (from other individuals), to immunity from the appropriation of X (by the state); (vii) the power of transmissibility; (viii) the lack of a term on the possession of these rights; (ix) a duty not to use X in ways liable to cause harm; (x) the liability to execution - losing X for repayment of a debt; and (xi) the rights for the return of rights to the holder when the rights of others in X have lapsed. -- from: Honore AM. in Guest AG, ed. Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Judith Malina (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

---

And this counts as NPOV? user:sjc

What is the difference between Property (law) and Property law? Alex756

I think we should combine articles related to stuff about propety into one. There are a lot of overlaps now. -- Taku 02:33 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, there's actually a matrix of concerns. You have private individual ownership, private family or trust ownership, private union or co-op ownership, cultural or social ownership (like a commons), state or jurisdictional ownership, various contractual ways to share ownership and access, and the 'public domain' of what is 'not owned' at all. Against this you have to map the kinds of things that can be owned, of which the most critical are the kinds of capital which have implications for who owns the product or yields of the capital.

Such article if know are property, ownership, property law, real property. If merged article is too long, maybe we can have two articles: one about propety general or political side such as socialism and one about legal issues. -- Taku 02:33 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

A better way to state this is to say that there are systems of property rights that lean strongly towards the collective and assume that property rights can be re-assigned as required to suit the collective intelligence's perception (socialism) to gain efficiency, and others that argue that doing this causes a loss of faith in the integrity of property systems and demotivates improving any property whatsoever - accordingly, one must live with the degree of suffering caused by the occassional unavailability fo capital for its optimal use (this is the basis of capitalism). One can also state this as optimistic vs. pessimistic about human nature vs. social decision making, or as backwards vs. forward looking. Once the property rights are assigned, however, one can of course look at how they are protected and denied others with no reference to the political economy that assigned them or restricted them.

I'm not sure if I completely agree, definitely put property law and property together, it should be a general statement about property laws in varous jurisdictions civil law and common law with links to more specific divisions, and then some technical concepts (just a few, this area of law could quickly get out of control, I just drafted a The Rule in Shelley's Case but we don't want to have a whole book on future interests in a general encyclopedia). I think ownership is different than property and probably more philosophical than legal (or maybe it is part of the philosophy of law or jurisprudence; Real property is a definitely subdivision of commmon law property law in the common law, the other being personal property. There is too much information to bring this all together without destroying a lot of work already done. Alex756

I hope I have put this in the right place, Iam a fairly new Wikipedian!

I don't think the ownership page should be merged with property , since ownership is a relationship of which property is only one element. I am saying more in 'ownership' than one can say about the things which are owned. Indeed, many of the important points made here are about the relationships (helpful and otherwise) created between people who own, not at all about what is owned, ie property.

Tony Clarke

Yes, ownership is about the relationship among properties. But it is also true that things become properties once they are owned by someone. I mean they are different things but they should be talked in the same context. In wikipedia, we want to discuss ideas, knowledge such as ownership or properties or some concrete entities such as persons. Maybe we can have an article called "ownership and property" in which we can talk about quite a general thing like what does it mean by ownning things or when people own or lose? To me, such a article seems more like encyclopedia while each ownership and propety article seems a little more than definitions found in dictionaries. If the article becomes too general or idea and history-centric, we can have a separate article for property law. What do you think? Remember we don't need an article corresponding to each English word. It's called a dictionary.

Anyway, I certain welcome any comments. Cheers!

-- Taku 23:39 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

This article is much more a general article about the idea of property and in ways it does a good job of drawing attention to how culturally variable it is. Regarding the law of property I must say that it is not just a bunch of definitions, one difficulty in understanding legal concepts is that they cannot just be understood by knowing what the words mean (check out The Rule in Shelley's Case for an example. It is the interrelationship of these ideas that build up a system of law, Anyway a legal dictionary such as Black's Law Dictionary has almost 25,000 terms on approximately 1700 pages (Deluxe 7th edition), what is here (generally speaking) are relatively general overviews of various areas of law and some in-depth discussion topics that deal with historical stuff, social aspects of how the law differs in various places and legal institutions, not really stuff for a dictionary. Alex756 01:35 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry but I really didn't mean to argue again this current article, which is written well and I have no intention to destroy them. My point is I mean why I said this is a little more than entries in dictionaries is because this article is basically explain what is a property, how defined in laws, trementent of property in culture and a little beyond it. This is why it seems strange if we combine ownership to property because they are in nature different concepts. But we want not just define stuff but write a prose. For example, we need to discuss stuff for example, when properties are acquired, destroyed, or defended. Can territories of the state be a property? What is the ownership of the Earth? If resources can be copied limitlessly, what is that mean by the ownership or property. These stuff don't fit neither here or to ownership article because both property and ownership articles talk about what is a property, what is an ownership and basically that is all. Maybe saying an entry in dictionary is a midconception because surely this article is not a mere definition. We can spend many words only about what is it but in my opinion an article in encyclopedia can be beyond about what is it and it should be. For example, see subprogram an article I wrote recently. The article seems still stuby but I think it is what we want to have here. Or I am trying to add more about how Japanese language affects to Japanese and their cultures in Japanese language. Those are not about what is a Japanese language for sure. Besides, as we know the article is definitely inclined to that in laws. While property is a legal term I think, we don't have to limit discussion about it.

Actually this is my recent complain about wikipedia though. (If you observe me, I have been mering) and posssibly my incline can be not that of a majority in here. Or maybe simply I didn't understand well topics property and ownership. I hope you don't mind if I misunderstood the matter completely. -- Taku 03:57 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I welcome your comments Taku, and it was interesting for me to think how ownership and property are different. Property is something physical and real in the world, to which some laws apply: ownership is a relationship between people and things, and sometimes affects relationships between people in a harmful way, e.g the difference between the developed and the develo9ping worldis a difference of wealth, ie the amount of ownership the societies have. And there are also huge gaps in the quality of life between these societies. This difference comes down tohard realities such as child povety,illness, suffering, short life spans.. I think all of these are somehow related to wownership, since it can allow us to legitimately exclude people, our neighbour next door, or our neighbour on the other side of the globe. But I know that a world order structured on ownership, or on anything else for that matter, cannot be changed safely except in a very slow way.

Hope you don't mind me thinking out loud, and as you can see my thinking isn't clear enough sometimes. Best wishes

TonyClarke 09:53 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

A starting point to fix this up would be to designate corporate and land ownership and state (and commons) and instruction ownership as necessarily collective. Land and instruction, unlike devices or infrastructure, are guaranteed to outlast any one person's life so they are at least inheritable - and is often collectively owned via trusts, rights of way, etc. Corporations are usually held at least 49% by someone other than the CEO, very often 51%.

---

This section has a major NPOV problem, but I do not feel qualified to fix it:

It is commonly but incorrectly believed that some cultures, for example native Americans had no concept of property. This mistaken belief comes from the fact that some commodities which are considered economically important in one society are not valuable in others. Thus ownership of land is important for agricultural societies but not in hunter-gatherer societies.

Just from a logical standpoint: The notion of property is not innate, that is, it evolved as human society evolved. There was a time in human history when property did not exist, therefore there ARE cultures without this concept: our own. Also, the idea that certain natural resources are "important" or "valuable" is NOT the same thing as property, which denotes owners, exclusion, contracts (for transferring ownership) and positive law to describe these rights. A culture can feel that their food and water sources are "important", but still have a notion of a common right to possess and use these resources communally, with no creature having a greater right to use than another.

Bhuston 16:16, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Animals seem to innately mark their territory

The best thing to do is state that property refers specifically to the present set of legal arrangements based on possession and title, and have a reference to other systems of ownership. This can include medieval and roman law, native american systems or anything else people feel is interesting, but which are not, properly speaking property.

This would be useful because many of these systems have an impact on the present system of corporate and property law, but are would not be considered "good law". The transition between older property conceptions based on feudal arrangements and the modern system is relevant, partially because it is still going on in a large fraction of the developing world.

Stirling Newberry 05:30, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We also need to clean up the difference between "property" and "private property", which this article is, well, somewhat unclear on. Stirling Newberry 05:32, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Knot, Gordian, like that. Just wrote a section, rather bad one, on anthropological study of property systems. Needs a better one, but the original section was just a rant that needed at least some improvment.

Stirling Newberry 06:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have something on the philosophical justifacation for property the only thing i found relating to it was the quote "From this evolved the modern conception of property as a right which is enforced by positive law, in the expecation that this would produce more wealth and better standards of living."

JeffBobFrank 03:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This seems wrong. That may be the post-hoc justification but the more likely explanation for the growth of property law is the wish of property-owners to protect their property without having to use a big stick.

Exile

Not so Tiny Disagreement?

There seems to be a tiny disagreement between Christofurio and myself regarding a certain sentence. Christofurio wrote:

[...] and that property rights are akin to the household goods that a father may dole out among his kids -- his to take back or redistribute according to his pleasure.

And I replaced it with:

[...] and that property is akin to the household goods that a father may dole out among his kids -- his to take back, keep to himself or give to his favorite subjects according to his pleasure.

Why the change? Well, first of all, you can't redistribute property rights. You can only redistribute actual property. Second of all, the term "redistribution" itself looks to me like a sneaky attempt at introducing POV by trying to put all enemies of capitalism in the same boat - as advocates of laissez-faire are so keen to do whenever they get the opportunity. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it doesn't hurt to replace the term with an equivalent phrase, does it?

Reply: The passage in question is discussing Filmer, and it seems to me that Filmer would indeed say that the sovereign can redistribute property rights. I don't have a pertinent quotation handy, but in the absense of quotations on point from you, I don't feel obligated. On Filmer's patriachialist view, the Big Daddy says, "here son M, have a toy horse" and "here, son N, have a teddy bear." Now, what does it mean to say that Big Daddy (and his toady, Filmer) is of the opinion that N has a right to that Teddy bear? It means that BD expects and hopes that M will stay away from the Teddy bear in the absense of N's permission, and that BD expects and hopes that if M violates this principle, N will be willing to tussle over it. BD can later change the allocation of horse and bear (and the rights that go with that allocation) but it is meaningful as a distribution of rights (not just of toys) until that time.

As to the word "redistribute" itself: it means "to distribute again." That is precisely its vernacular significance and what it meant in my use of it. It isn't one of my sneaky POV anarcho-capitalist plots. But since I'm so easy to get along with, I will abandon the use of "redistribute" if you will leave the phrase "property rights" unmolested.

I suffer from my own POV paranoia in this matter, after all. I believe that you are systematically removing the phrase "property rights" not just because you don't believe Filmer could have meant such a thing, but because you don't believe there are such things as property rights. Your efforts to explain why have been utterly illogical, going off on some tangent about "self-ownership" as you have. (Memo: My relation to my self isn't ownership -- it's identity.) My own POV is that the right to own and contractually transfer property is a human right, indistinguishable in principle from such other human rights as worship or free expression. But regardless of all that, 'property rights' is a fair phrase for what Filmer was saying, and I'll keep putting it in as long as you keep trying to take it out. You've had your way on "redistribution" -- that should leave you self-identically content. --Christofurio 13:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Of course you can redistribute or do whatever you see fit with property rights - it happens all the time, the most visible contemporary example is intellectual property rights which are bought and sold all the time. Patent troll companies (and others building IPR portfolios) engage in exactly such practices. Judith Malina (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

A lot of material in the article (e.g. English philosophers) seems to relate more to the justification for the state rather that property as such. I recognise that these topics are connected but they are not the same. As well as this, there is a difference between legal, moral, and social views of property which are muddled in the article.--Jack Upland 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree, a text book definition I like is

"You have property rights when you own or have exclusive rights to use some asset such as a good or service. Others must compensate you if they wish to use your property. For example, you may have property rights over a car, but no clearly defigned property rights to a particular area of the highway belongs to you alone. You share the highway with others".

- pg 87, Moden Industrial Organizations, Dennis W. Carlton, Jeffrey M. Perloff

This is unclear - it conflates the category of property with its sub-category private property.

“With individually owned property, alienability is achieved by assigning all exclusionary rights over an asset to the same person, including the right to any benefits the asset produces, the right to sell the asset, and the right to any proceeds from a sale of the asset. This collocation of decision rights and wealth effects provides both the incentive and the feasibility for value-enhancing transfers. Berle and Means (1932) appropriately call collocation the “atom of property” and view it as “the very foundation on which the economic order of the past three centuries has rested.” -from page 77 in Holderness, Clifford G. (2003) 'Joint ownership and alienability', International Review of Law and Economics 23: 75–100 - so what Carlton/Perloff speak of is private property, not property in general. Judith Malina (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro/Anti Property

I think pro and anti property sections need to be reconsidered. Maybe the terms "pro property" and "anti property" should be changed to "pro private property" and "anti private property" to avoid the contridiction of communism appearing in both sections. Also, "Ownership society" seems more like a political slogan used to promote capitalism rather than a separate idea.

Inheritance

I find it weird that Inheritance isn't mentioned in this article since it's a major form of property which at the same time can't be defended by the "I worked for my money" argument.

M&Ms: Though not explicitly mentioned "inheritance" comes under the right to transfer or sell property - one of the use rights in the bundle. 26/04/06.

Inheritance is a very different concept, and not property. No one possesses inheritence, its what happens to property after the owner dies. This is an entirely different subject.

Reference to Adam Smith

I would be very grateful if this paragraph was referenced as I can not find any evidence in Adam Smith's work of text similar to this paragraph. If I'm wrong please accept my apologies.

According to Adam Smith, the expectation of profit from "improving one's stock of capital" rests on private property rights, and the belief that property rights encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of the market is central to capitalism.

Many thanks —Preceding Rich1981 comment added by Rich1981 (talk • contribs) 15:57, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual "property"?

Ahem, disregard previous edit.

David Hume and Legal Positivism

It's in the article:

He did not believe in hypothetical contracts, or in the love of mankind in general, and sought to ground politics upon actual human beings as one knows them. "In general," he wrote, "it may be affirmed that there is no such passion in human mind, as the love of mankind, merely as such, independent of personal qualities, or services, or of relation to ourselves." Existing customs should not lightly be disregarded, because they have come to be what they are as a result of human nature. With this endorsement of custom comes an endorsement of existing governments, because he conceived of the two as complementary: "A regard for liberty, though a laudable passion, ought commonly to be subordinate to a reverence for established government."

These views led to a view on property rights that might today be described as legal positivism. There are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them.[29] He offered some practical home-spun advice on the general subject, though, as when he referred to avarice as "the spur of industry," and expressed concern about excessive levels of taxation, which "destroy industry, by engendering despair."

Legal Positivism? Really? What is being said is that David Hume thought that property rights are something good or at least something that ought to be protected because they are part of society's custom.

However, the claim of legal positivism is:

"In any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits."

— Legal Positivism

In that paragraph, there's nothing about David Hume's view on the validity of law, only about his views on politics.

So, not only I think this comparison with legal positivism is wrong, but also there is no source and seems like original research. Therefore, I'm removing it.