Jump to content

Talk:Property/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Property is nine-tenths of everything.

Without going into original thought, I thought the concept of property was far more universal and obvious than what is stated in the article and elsewhere. No one has made any effort to simply the term so that it is easier to understand. "One's own thing" is lacking. Not a single mention of the famous quote "property is nine-tenths of the law" has been made or elaborated on. Nor the fact, yes fact, that murder and rape are the most heinous acts against society because they deprive one of their most intimate properties ... life and body. Since when were our cells, our body, and our emotions seperated from the concept of property rights? "That which is created belongs to its creator" is so important a fact that civilization cannot exist without it. Artwork belongs to an artist because he made it. Labor belongs to the laborer, unless traded for some other property or medium of exchange. Land belongs to the one that built something on it or farmed it, etc, etc. This is most likely how property rights came to exist, not by force of arms or warfare, but by creative ability. No one has any motivation to create or improve anything unless they benefit from it somehow, thus property. This is not POV, no more than murder and rape being wrong is a POV. Property rights is fundamental like any other fundamental right, such as freedom of speach or presumption of innocence. Jcchat66 01:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is yet another confusion: the quote is not that property is nine tenths of the law, but that possession is (with regards to making a successful legal claim to a certain instance of ownership): "Possession is very strong; rather more than nine points of the law." — Lord Mansfield (1774). It simply means that if you and I meet in a court of law to discuss whether Thing A is mine or thine, then, all things being equal, there is a 90% chance that whoever holds in their possession Thing A will be legally entitled to Thing A on the basis of their possession. In jurisprudence, however, this is not as solid as it might have been in 1774 and in the mind of Mansfield (or today in the popular imagination), since the issue of labour is crucial: if you have hunted an animal all day long in a public forest (where I am also entitled to hunt) and finally tired the beast and you are homing in for the final blow just as I appear from my siesta and pick up the exhausted animal right in front of you. Without consideration of your immense labour all day long my possession would entitle me to own the animal, yet upon reasoned consideration it should be obvious that the last ten percent of the law comes into play here and that it is more rightfully your animal than mine, despite my possession Judith Malina (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


M&Ms says: Your body is nothing to do with property rights or property law. The structure of the body law is insufficient. This body only refers to to "things" that can be created, used as capital, transferred etc. And yes while a human can be put through all three property law creates rules tpo govern the relationship between one persons property and others (i.e. those who do not own the property) and what the owner can do. There is no real body of Human Law as such but most is contained either under criminal law, a constitution, or even a Human Rights Charter such as the UN charter.

Fundamental rights are not determined by law or government, and are usual excluded because they are outside the scope of government power. For example, Presumtion of Innocence is not defended by the US Constitution, because it is not necessary. Constitutions do not create rights, but specify the limits of government power. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be monopolized by Americans, but was merely recognized by the US as fundamental and absolute. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a human right regardless of national origin or culture. Governments do not make or take away rights, but in recent times the trend has been to changed the perception of a right to match that of a priviledge, proliferating countless rights that do not exist in society. But property rights is essential to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and intergral, and does not have to be specifically recognized by society or its leaders. How can one be free to vote if they cannot own the property that would enable their voting? The vehicle, the clothes on their body, food, etc ... all necessary to vote. The right to vote does not mean we can put a gun to someone's head and make them take us to the voting booth.

Yes, one's body is a thing, it is property, the most sacred property perhaps one can own. (See quote below) A thing is not always physical, such as intellectual property. Property is not tied to capital or any kind of ecomony or social developement. An Apache warrior owns his bow and arrow, and considered it a part of his body, his property. For without that bow and arrow he could not feed his family, or defend himself from predators, etc. Property is property, and it is narrow-minded to complicate it by trying to seperate in ways that aristocrats and politicians have done for centuries to justify greed and tyranny. Jcchat66 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"The State...stands between me and my body, and tells me what kind of doctor I must employ. When my soul is sick, unlimited spiritual liberty is given me by the State. Now then, it doesn't seem logical that the State shall depart from this great policy...and take the other position in the matter of smaller consequences -- the health of the body....Whose property is my body? Probably mine....If I experiment with it, who must be answerable? I, not the State. If I choose injudiciously, does the State die? Oh, no."

Mark Twain, in "Osteopathy," 1901

M&Ms: Yes passionate speeches aside I do not think you understand what I said. Property is a commodity a "thing". Property rights are there to establish rules on how we treat property and what we can do with it - that is the purpose of property law. You cannot transfer ownership of a human and technically while a parent has certain rights to dictate, as it were, what a child does, this is not a form of ownership. For example if a parent abuses their child the child can be taken away. Is somebody going to take your toy cars from you because you through them around the back garden? Also I was not implying that to have any rights we need a constitution but again if we are to have law we must have a reference point take this example

Bunreacht Na hEireann (which means : The constitution of Ireland)

Article 40

(3.1) The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. (3.2) The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

Article 43 Private Property

(1.1) The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods. (1.2) The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property. (2.1) The State recognizes, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice. (2.2) The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

You see here the constitution states you rights within the society and then to ensure property rights for the individual. They are different things! By the way Mark Twain was not a law maker.

Constitutions only state the limitations and function of government. They have no more power to state rights than the king of England has a right to order your death. It simply does not exist. Many constitutions will be written in such a way as to limit rights, but that does not make them legitimate. Most constitutions are poorly written.

I've had to give this careful thought, but it seems that the concept of "free will" has been taken for granted concerning all other matters of "rights" and their relation to "property". If one has free will, than by extention they have all rights associated with free will, which are quite limited. As the Japanese and the US constitutions state "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This alone inlcudes every possible right that extends from free will, incuding property rights.

That's because it should have been self-evidedent that "life" is property, and not all property is a commodity. Even the soul is considered the property of whatever creator one believes in. The word "property" has never been narrowly restricted to just a commodity or a thing. Again you make things more complicated than is needed, thus all the confusion of this article. And fror crying out loud, since when were lawmakers above criticism? Mark Twain would have made a better lawmaker than most anyway, which neither compliments or deminishes his character. Jcchat66 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms says: NO! I'm not trying to engage in a discussion. I am telling you that under law property is a commodity, a thing. Whereas a person (or life) is regarded as a "natural entity". They are diffferent systems of rights. Q.E.D.

I do not understand where the misunderstanding lies. The law is not in question, or how it may correctly or incorrectly define property. Property is most definately not strictly a commodity, that is the point of this discussion. If you look up "commodity" in Wikipedia you get "It is the contract and this underlying standard that define the commodity, not any quality inherent in the product." Commodity and property are not closely related in the least, and it should be obvious why. Not all inventions have been transformed into commodities on the market, yet is still intellectual property.

If you not trying to engage in a discussion, than why are you discussing this one the discussion area???? Jcchat66 20:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms says: This section was started by someone who believed that omitting a natural individual (i.e. a person) from the property rights article was an error. I was simply pointing out that a person rights are not included as part of property law. It applies to "things" (and I'm also going to cover myself by saying animals too). So what I meant by saying by "not trying to engage in a discussion" is that as a persons' rights under law do not enter into property law it is a POV to do so. I was simply informaing that a persons rights do not belong in the property rights section.

Um, a persons rights do not belong in the property rights section? Property law comes from property rights. As one who has written several deeds I know a great deal about property laws and their origins. That is why this article is so disturbing is that it fails to mention universal and self-evident principles from where all property rights and property laws come from. So I am not sure what you are trying to get at here. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Jcchat66 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms says: What I meant by personal rights are rights such as the freedom of speech, freedom to practice religion - these rights are not part of property law and that was the arguement at the start of this section. As shown in the section of the constitution that I previously posted you do have a right to property under law (this is a nutural right or whatever you want to call it) but then once you are given the right to own something other laws are created around this to govern how you are allowed use and regulate your property - this is property law. Two different, but definitely related, bodies of law.

More than a POV problem, but a lack of basic understanding

There are many opinions here that are biased and have a POV based upon that bias. Those that wish to change the definition of property to instill some kind of socialist ideology should be ashamed of themselves. The mere mention of property as anything other than a commodity seems to inspire confusion. And then we have those of you trying to blame the idea of property rights for poverty in poor countries, which is a horribly ignorant POV.

Property is ownership. Ownership if anything is property. The two concepts are completely indivisible, period. You simply cannot have one without the other. This remains a self-evident regardless of culture, religion, politics, or anything else one might invent to undermine the concept of property. It is not limited by the law, justified by morality, or negated by an act of government. It simply exists. It is neither good or bad, nor does it have anything to do with either capitalism or communism. How property is regarded by the law or social affairs is another subject entirely, and a subject easilly manipulated by those that do not understand fundamental concepts first and foremost before attempting to discuss them. Slavery existed in history because the law abused the concept of property. Rape is not against the law in some countries for the same reason. So the law cannot ever be depended upon to define property correctly, as it often does not.

Property is something owned or possessed by an individual. The fundalmental principle can be summed up with a single sentence: That which is created becomes the property of its creator. From this concept everything else falls into place concering its moral or ethical nature, and the debated issue of property rights. Once property is allowed to be held by artificial entities like corporations or governments do things get more complicated. Remember, it is property RIGHTS. Governments and corporations do not have RIGHTS, they are created to serve the public good. Property rights only means individual property rights. That said, one may continue to more complex issues.

--- if what is created becomes the property of the creator, then why did I not come home from the General Motors assembly line today with a bunch of Cadillacs, after all I created them? Judith Malina (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You did not create the cars. They were designed by a team of engineers, who are compensated for their time and thought, who in turn work for a corporation owned by investors. You did not create the metal, that was mined by another set of workers also being compensated for their labor, by yet another corporation and investors. You did not create the factory needed to assemble those cars, or the masons and carpenters needed to build the factory, probably still yet commissioned by another company. A massive team of people were needed to create those cars, and all of them are compensated for their work, because its impossible that just one person could do all this work by themselves. What you created was labor, not the cars. It is the labor you own. Since you can't take home labor, you receive a medium of exchange (money) you can use to buy what you need. Jcchat66 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

--- But for those who insist that property rights have caused a problem in society, or needs to be eliminated, consider this .... very few contries have true property rights. (In America it is fading rapidly, most Americans no longer own land.) Where it is held by the least number of individuals we have the poorest or most fuedal countries, or epic empires. Where it is held by the largest number of people we have the most prosperous populations, and by far the freest. Throughout most of human history property has belonged to a very few people, thus feudalism and autocracy, and in later years fascism, communism (yes, only a very few people control the property regardless of the ideology). Those that have struggled for property rights for the majority of people were the Greek democracies, the farmer-dominate Roman Republic, the Celts, Hebrews, England after the Magna Carta, modern Hong Kong and Japan, and of course America.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet? That's right, those that have fought for freedom throughout the ages also fought for property rights, because the two concepts go hand in hand. Marx had a good point, but assumed the wrong things. Property was held by a few in Europe, despite their freer societies, one does not truly own property in Europe. European constitutions clearly give preference over property to the nation-state, not the individual. Therefore Marx's struggle was against what he perceived was privately held capitalists in Europe, when instead he was struggling against another, modern form of fuedalism in Europe. Had he had more experience in America he might have held a different outlook. In the early days of America corporations could not own land without an act of congress, thus the railroad companies. This prevented any kind of feudalism or class struggle from emerging in early America when most property was privately held free and clear by individuals. Could you imagine Walmart without corporate land ownership? No, because the worker-landowner could evict Walmart at any moment if they upset the public good. This had never been the case in Europe when corporations held more sway than their own governments. Of course this led to class struggle, just as it will in America adopts European legal standards.

So how can anyone justify property rights being oppressive in any way, when history has proven time and time again that it is the individual's right to property that had been oppressed to the point of atrocities like the Roman conquests of "barbarians" or the modern Holocaust? Yes, the Nazis tried to eliminate property rights as well, just like the Egyptians did with the Hebrews, and like most tyrants of history who wanted all the property for themselves.

So is one debating a social issue, or merely the age-old issue of greed? Jcchat66 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not up to reading through this entire essay. Isn't the function of this page to detail what other sources (preferably representing a wide range of views) have said about the notion of Property? I would think an active debate about the correct view of property rights would be better suited elsewhere.--Bookandcoffee 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already proposed that "Property" and "Property Rights" be seperated. Jcchat66 18:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, by elsewhere, I actually meant off the property. :) I read the above as an appeal for a particular view on property rights - now your view may be correct, I don't know, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the task at hand. Even with a page at "Property Rights", there is no place for the personal argument for or against the merit of the idea. It, as here, should contain references and discussion which provide a balanced view of what previous, verified, sources have claimed. (Whew, I'll get off my soap box now.)--Bookandcoffee 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're hardly on a soap box :). I understood what you meant. I'm too new a Wikipedian to make a different article to seperate the two. My above response is basically towards all the others debating property rights.

Living Rigts over Deed of Home

My Father has signed over the Deed to his home to my younger sibling, and he has living rights? he wishes to have the Deed back over into his name due to the younger sibling not living up to agreements made to help with and provide an environment which is safe and clean, he wishes to have back the say so in his home. My father is Disabled with MS and is limited on what he is able to do. My younger sibling is very hot headed and can not be talked to about my Dads concerns, How should this be handled? and what can I do to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.229.101 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Property is about rights and obligations between people with regard to things

This review is missing one of the most prominant views of property for the past century. Jurists, anthropologists, and others have spent many decades now speaking about property not as a thing, or as a relationship between people with regard to things, but as a set of jural relationships between people with regard to things. This entry should recognize this.

I am willing to put this in.

Any comments?

user:Chookus

In the past century many strongly held beliefs supported by thousands of years of experience have been challenged for modern political agendas and POV reasons. Prominent and educated people in the Catholic Church spent a great deal of effort trying to prove the world was flat, but does that mean we need to discuss it? The question should be: Is the notion of property being redefined as the relationship between things important enough to mention? Jcchat66 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly more important to mention than whether or not someone once used to believe that the earth is flat. It is a very poor analogy - the earth (or the planet) is an object, a tangible thing with an essence in and of itself. It exists as such. Property is an artificial (or social) construction and constitute one of the most central points of conflict in (the history of) political theory. It changes all the time and with it changes political theory. (See for instance Richard Schlatter's by now classic "Private Property: The history of an Idea". London: George Allen & Unwin, 1951 /or/ for a more current perspective Laura Brace's "The Politics of Property". Edinburgh University Press, 2004). In other words, anyone can say whatever they want about the earth and it will still be more or less spherical. However, property is a social/artificial concept which has taken many different forms over time. The only way to understand property properly is to understand the ways in which it is changing, in particular in relation to contemporary changes in political theory. The conception of property as a social relation with regards to things is fairly standard. Judith Malina (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, the Church didn't try to prove the world was flat. In the interest of historical correctness, I feel compelled to note that the Ptolemaic system which everyone before Copernicus used had as one of its principles that the world was a sphere. Dante Alighieri, in the pre-Renaissance Medieval Era, wrote the Divine Comedy using round-earth cosmology. I mean, come on, people yell at people who Godwin, but I think I'm going to invent my own law: "as a Wikipedia talk discussion proceeds, the probability of someone saying the Church was in support of the flat-earth hypothesis increases to 1." And at least Hitler analogies are ABLE to be appropriate. The Church-flat earth business is naught but historical slander by high school atheists. TonalHarmony (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Body ownership debatable

I suggest that the statement in section "What can be property" that "By either standard, ones body is ones property" is presumptive. For example, while it may be easy to see ways in which one may "mix one's labour" with one's body (excercise, eating etc) it is also easy to see ways that others mix their labour with anothers body - for example, a surgeon performing an operation, or the actions of the good samaritan, etc... I suggest that the sentence in question expresses as fact something that is debatable. Discuss... Mahatma dj 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is debatable, than everything is debatable. But if one's own body is not property, then why is rape a crime? Women have the right to not be violated precisely because they own their bodies and no one else does. To argue against this would be to argue against a century of womens struggle for equality. The mixed labor idea is just a poor expression of a realistic (as opposed to an idealistic) concept. Jcchat66 00:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I anticipate some discussion on the question: Can't a property identified through one be any other one? My students wanted to know more on this question regarding property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeyamalini (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the passage as currently drafted is presumptive and in addition is poorly reasoned. Unfortunately I don't have the time to fix it right now. I should point out, though, that the Supreme Court of California has struggled with this question. See Moore v. Regents of the University of California.--Coolcaesar (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Precise definition

The first sentence (the definition) of property contradicts the rest of the article. If we define property as the "right to action" then a person can not "own" his or her property. The rest of the article refers property as any physical or virtual good that can be transfered. This is evidence that we should define property as a physical or virtual good, not a "set of rights".

Many sources even defines property as tangible or intangible goods that is owned by someone. A property is a tangible or intangible resource that is owned by someone. Sources include:

  • "property definition". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |site= ignored (help)
  • "property", American Heritage Dictionary
  • "property", WordNet

We should not confuse property with property rights. Awesomeeconomist (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to offer the definition of property: Property is any material object need in which two or more individuals test or can test simultaneously. (Vasiljev, Sergei, The Property (September 10, 2008). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1265987). By the way, there is the definition of property rights too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.70.122.3 (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does the opening sentence say that property is a physical thing that is owned? Property is a right. "Property" describes your rights in regard to a tangible (or intangible) thing. I'm pretty sure every legal theorist would agree with that... for merely one example you may see p.4 of "A Property Law Reader: Cases, Questions and Commentary," 2nd ed., edited by Bruce Ziff. It is a Canadian law book but the same holds true in the USA (and everywhere else). Quoting dictionary definitions is pointless. This article is part of the "common law" series, so I take it to be written from that perspective. You could include instead a note that explains that property in a legal sense may differ from some colloquial uses of the word "property." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.254.43 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC) - "the concept of property is... abstract: rather than referring directly to a material object such as a parcel of land or the tractor that cultivates it, the concept of property is often said to refer to a "bundle of rights" that may be exercised with respect to that object - principally the rights to possess the property, to use the property, to exclude others from the property, and to dispose of the property by sale or gift." This quote, from a Supreme Court of California decision (Moore v. The Regents of the University of California, Cal.S.C. 1990), shows the issue nicely... After defining property as a right (or rights) rather than a particular tangible or intangible object, it goes on, in the second half of the sentence, to use 'property' in the colloquial sense (where it often does refer to a particular object). I think the intro should make this possibly confusing point clear: "Property" means rights held by a person or state in regard to an object that is owned, but sometimes "property" is used in a loose sense to refer to the object itself. - So no one is ever gonna change the opening paragraph? It's terrible! Look at the second sentence, which has three sources, and yet is clearly false: "Depending on the nature of the property, ... [the owner has certain rights]." No. Think about that for a second... it would mean that every time an object was of the same "nature," a property interest in it would convey the same rights. Like all peices of land come with the same rights, all books come with the same rights, etc. That proposition is blatantly false. The nature of the object over which a person has property rights will sometimes affect what rights those are, sometimes not. It's just so blatantly false that it is the nature of the object that determines the rights of the property... To make clear my example, consider that you can own two books. Those books have the same "nature" - they are hardback books full of pages, or whatever. And yet you may have different property rights in them: one may have an expired copyright and so you can photocopy it to your heart's content. The other is physically owned by you, but the intellectual property (the words on the pages) is the intellectual property of the owner. So you don't have the same rights in regards to two objects which are of the same nature, even though you own both. Therefore the nature of the object does not determine the property rights that come with it...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.254.43 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

cross-cultural perspectives?

It would be nice if we could add some sections here on cross-cultural perspectives on property. I'm thinking in particular of less technologically advanced tribal societies that may have radically different ideas about property.

I agree. The "Property in Philosophy" and "Theories of Property" sections should probably be merged, and far less emphasis should be put on English theories of property. Lagringa (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflation of the subcategory "private property" with the category "property"

The article currently begins: "Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights", which is misleading. That actually refers to a specific definition of "private property" (and even that definition is contested) and not to "property" in general, which can take many forms (and of which private property is only one version).

Law students in the UK will learn that "property is social relations with regards to things" and that a specific configuration of property rights is a specific way of configuring these social relations. Private property rights is the predominant configuration, but by no means the only one - and as already mentioned even that is a contested issue: what, exactly, does private property entail?

The article as it currently begins is not really en entry for "property", but rather an entry for "those things referred to in the context of private property rights" - in other words, there is a seriously misleading conflation going on here.

By analogy - it corresponds to an entry for "soft drinks" beginning: "A soft drink is a Coca Cola". The Coca Cola company might wish that to be true - some might think so - but it cannot objectively be said to reflect anything sensible. Coca Cola is a soft drink, but not all soft drinks are Coca Cola; it's elementary :)

I propose that the entry rather commences something like this: "Property is an elementary aspect of social organisation in many different cultures, but not in all, and can take many different forms. The most well-known and predominant conception of property is configurhed within rights-based systems and is known as private property rights."

That, however, will have implications for the rest of the page's unfolding, but it really needs to be corrected.

Judith Malina 12:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Different societies may have different theories of property for differing types of ownership. Pauline Peters argued that property systems are not isolable from the social fabric, and notions of property may not be stated as such, but instead may be framed in negative terms: for example the taboo system among Polynesian peoples." By this quote already in the argument, I thought it was addressing all the different notions of property. Private property has always existed so long as we believe we own our own bodies, and by extension, anything we put effort into. Whether its for the good of a tribe, a corporation, or any society, is irrelevant and not the subject of this article, though they may overlap. As you quote: "Property is an elementary aspect of social organisation in many different cultures, but not in all, and can take many different forms." This sentence seems to contradict itself, for if property is an elementary aspect of social organization, then how is it not for ALL social organization? That is like saying, matter is elementary in our universe, but not all universes. How is any kind of social organization possible at all without some concept of peoperty? How can there exist organization in the universe without matter? Society ONLY comes to exist to exercise power over property ... the fruits of farming, hunting, building, making pottery, and countless other properties over which society must gain control over to exist. Such notions may be abused, as all things may, to control people as property (slavery), or beneficial social recognition of property with laws, thus protecting one's body from murder or rape (as their body is the first and foremost property of an individual.) But neither the bad or good use of property is for this article, merely how it is defined in societies, past and present. Jcchat66 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Jcchat66 you're totally missing her point, and your take on property here and in other comments begs the question - you're asserting, not demonstrating or citing, that property is fundamental to all forms of social organization, in order to then scoff at the supposed absurdity of a conception of social organization that doesn't center a particular notion of property. Judith Malina's statement that you quote is pretty clear, and I can do no better than to restate it here: "Property is an elementary aspect of social organisation in many different cultures, but not in all, and can take many different forms." The only possible way to interpret this as self-contradictory is already to assume that social organization necessitates some concept of property. Furthermore, please note that she's saying it's an elementary aspect of social organization in some, not all cultures, not that it's present or absent depending, which is how you seem to read it. And it's telling that you analogize property to matter, since the tenor of your comments suggests a strong tendency to naturalize a collection of historically specific forms. Again, property is not just "stuff" but, as Judith Molina starts out by saying, a set of social relations with regards to things. Agreed that "stuff" is necessary for both universes and societies, but if that's the basic point, then it's trivial; if the basic point is instead that a conception of private property is fundamental to human society, than it's simply, and documentably, incorrect. Sindinero (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Owndom?

I'm inclined to remove "owndom" from the title. I'm not sure that it's a real word (the only online link I've found is to wiktionary); it's not in dictionary.com, m-w.com, the large unabridged dictionary I have at home, nor is it in Black's Law Dictionary. If it is a real word - and if it is actually a synonym for "property" (which is a question I couldn't answer because I couldn't find the word) - I still don't think it belongs in the title of the article since it's so obscure it doesn't clarify anything: is there any person who would be confused by the term "property" and then have their confusion cleared by seeing "owndom?". I don't see the point in adding a synonym (assuming the word exists and is a synonym) just to have one. Thewimsey (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call. How did that creep in? Rivertorch (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On Property and Government

Thomas Jefferson had some interesting views on property rights in general, and IP rights in particular, that I think should be mentioned.

"It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

Government is just a means of allocating that which everyone is equally entitled to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.144.159 (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Karl Marx Quotation

Earlier I removed a quotation from the new Karl Marx section. The reason I did that was because the quotation as presented in the article did not make it clear what work it was from. The block quote should include a citation, or some explanatory text. I moved this discussion here from my talk page so we can have input from other editors. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Scholastic bias

This article is clearly the product of a long and rather painful evolution, which I'm afraid fundamentally curtails its encyclopaedic value: it bears the hallmarks of a battle between (roughly) two ideological camps over what the concept means for them, rather than cutting to the essence of the concept itself. In particular, there's a preponderance of legalistic and philosophical argument (ie, coded political argument), and far too little of the sociological, historical or anthropological. Property can't be adequately captured in such a narrow frame. I would like to canvass current editors' views on a wholesale restructure of this article. I propose we do a much better job up front of explaining the 'why' of property, before getting into the various philosophical accounts of it. Adhib (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

British-english meaning of property

Since "property" as used in the UK means what I suppose Americans would call "real estate", and is commonly used in phrases like property developer or commercial property, then I think there ought to be some recognition in the article (at the beginning) of this meaning. If you came to the article looking for information about property (in the UK sense, translating into "real estate" in Americano), then you are lost as there do not seem to be any links to lead you on, unless you are aware of the meaning of "real estate" which is a phrase not used in the UK except perhaps in specialised legal discussion.

Bear in mind, American chums, that Americans only make up a small proportion of english-speakers around the planet. 80.0.115.112

Are you bloody well kidding me? I am truly surprised that a snobish Brit could have made such a blunder. America has the LARGEST English-speaking population on Earth by far. Perhaps Great Britain should petition the US to become the 51st State so it can rejoin the English-speakin majority.
Aside from that bit of nonsense, since America inherited its property rights laws from British common law, there should be some mention of this with regards to this. Jcchat66 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population
Column 4 may help, here? But let's not be unencyclopaedic about this - if there's a local meaning to a word that refers to a distinct concept, disambiguate ... don't muddy this article. Adhib (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues in Property Rights Theory

The general feel of the section and the use of several specific words and phrases and the Tucker reference makes it clear to me that this was written by some ancap kid. Which is fine, everyone knows those people are obsessed with property, but it is hardly sourced at all and its actually just plain wrong in parts. It ends by saying "Some anarchist don't believe in property at all" that is simply not true, even anarcho-communists believe in personal property, the writer clearly doesn't understand the distinction between private and personal property, which is a pretty normal problem ancaps have. This is an important article but it needs a lot of work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Marx and Marxists on Property

Marx and Marxists have written quite a bit about property in general and specific forms of property such as private property, communal, state, etc so we should expand the section on Karl Marx to include his many critiques of private property as expressed for ex in the Rights of Man (e.g., Rights of Man claimed to be universal, absolute, inherent, etc but in fact were rights belonging to the dominant properties classes which countered the rights and privileges of the feudal classes namely customary duties and obligations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Not interested. This article is not a critique on property and especially not a critique on privately owned property. It is already common knowledge that Marx did not particularly care for private ownership. There is plenty in other articles I'm sure, which follow the communism, Marx line, contained within wiki. No need to expand on it here. 10stone5 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Property#Adam_Smith

" Furthermore, the labor theory of value popularized by classical economists such as Adam Smith[citation needed] and David Ricardo were utilized by a new[citation needed] ideology called socialism to critique the relations of property to other economic issues, such as profit, rent, interest, and wage-labor. Thus, property was no longer an esoteric philosophical question, but a political issue of substantial concern."

  • I removed this narrative from Adam Smith discussion of property. There is no relation of the above to Adam Smith. Feel free to place under some other philosopher tied to socialist thought. Smith, as is common knowledge, popularized laissez faire, the Invisible Hand, free markets. He did not outright espouse the socialist inspired labor theory of value, though socialist based economic narrators typically attempt to tie Smith into that theory. 10stone5 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there is a superabundance of navigation boxes for this article, several of which may only tangentially relate to the topic. Which are essential? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The history of Property

Why is there no text in this entry about the history of property? --31.106.190.154 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrew J. Galamos

In the U.S. as of the early 21st century, there is a widespread public impression that military conscription no longer exists. To the contrary, it is required that all men between ages 18 and 26 register for conscription. Failure to do so is punishable by imprisonment and substantial fines.

This sentence is irrelevant to the article. I propose that it be removed and replaced with a link from the word "conscprition" (earlier in the same paragraph) to the article Conscription. That article describes the status of conscription in various countries, and is the appropriate place for such information. --Tedd (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I see the root cause of the problem. This section is copied directly from the Andrew Joseph Galambos article. But it doesn't appear to be done by transclusion, so there should not be a problem excising the unwanted bit.--Tedd (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

two definitions

This article must make clear that there are two radically different meanings of property which include:

good/thing/object(s) possessed/owned (not relational definition)

OR

rights, claims, entitlements to the use and disposal of good/thing/object(s) vis-a-vis other members of society (relational definition)


It seems these two meanings are constantly confused and conflated by wiki editors working on articles related to property. The editor is using one meaning and then the other without noticing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the second definition is superior in that it is sociological and broader. Reading this article was very painful. I intend to find a few citations for that definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik323 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's even worse than that. The first sentence, "In the abstract, property is that which belongs to or with something, whether as an attribute or as a component of said thing", conflates the notions of object and attribute. If I'm paid $100 it becomes my property, a thing, while at the same time having the property of being money, an attribute. If I'm granted a patent it becomes my intellectual property, while at the same time having the property of being my invention, an attribute. A material property such as real estate or shares in a company and a material's property such as hardness or conductivity are two entirely different things.
The dab page clearly draws this distinction. In linking to this article it says "Property is the ownership of land, resources, improvements or other tangible objects, or intellectual property." The other meanings are therefore not the property of, i.e. do not belong in, this article. I propose changing at least the first sentence to reflect this and the preceding complaints. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

John Locke in dialog with… Benjamin Tucker?

This article has so many quirks, but the one I feel compelled to comment on today is in the "What is property?" subsection. The first two sentences artificially set up a dialog between John Locke, one of the most significant philosophers ever to write in English, and some guy named Benjamin Tucker, an "individualist anarchist" from the United States. Utterly random. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Choose Kind. Do you respect your family's/friend's/colleague's property properly.

If you guys do not respect each other's property properly; you would accept consequences. 124.106.140.87 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thomas More and Utopia

Why is Thomas More not included as one of philosophical positions on property? Utopia deals at length with the concept of property, property ownership, and how people interact with property. Snaperkids (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably because nobody has added him yet. Please find a reliable sources for this. For various reasons, Wikipedia favors secondary sources, so it would be much better to cite a source which explains the connection between More, Utopia, and Property, instead of citing More's writing directly. This would also help us avoid original research. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Inheritance Property

This includes the property you acquired from your ancestor over a period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:6800:F29F:BD71:F0DF:F257:42E2 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Intellectual Property

This includes the property and/or rights of the property which has a value and is a direct result of your own intelligence and or experience that add value to your personal life, Business, Community, establishment, corporation, and has an economic benefit as an addon. for example Policy and procedures or rules which are unique and designed, implemented by an individual for a successful operation of a business that resulted in an economic benefit or growth has value for other businesses as it has the intellectual — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:6800:F29F:BD71:F0DF:F257:42E2 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Property/Archive_2&oldid=1095030227"