Jump to content

Talk:Property rights (economics)/Archive 1

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

2008 comments

"These rights need not be held by a single person or collective."

I'm sure this makes sense to an economist, but to the lay person it's confusing. If the property right is held by neither a single person nor a collective, who is it held by -- an elephant? Is a corporate body not a collective? Or does "collective" have a special meaning in economics? Perhaps someone can clarify that.--Tedd (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- and the idea is captured in the first sentence. So it has been removed. As an aside, if elephants were owned, there would be a lot more of them - I've never heard of a crisis that threatens the existence of the cow. Corebreeches (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why a separate lemma?

It occurs to me that the legal and economical discussion on property rights should be merged. As a "property right" is about a right, it is (also) a legal matter anyhow. Rbakels (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Open access"

It is confusing to use the term "open access". Typially "open access" goods do have a proprietor, but he allows the good to be used freely. In contrast, a "res nullius" may be appropriated by the one who finds it. Rbakels (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's some confusion between things that nobody yet owns but someone could own, and those which are not and cannot (practically) be owned. I think res nullius is the first one, while open access is the second, but I'm not sure how to confirm this or how to change the article. MilesMoney (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Use based property

What about use based property. Most libertarian socialist systems have property "rights" where the individual controls property that it's using personally. This usually includes all things that in principle are non-scarce. This would include cars, houses and your infamous toothbrush. It specifically excludes things that are used to exploit, like land you aren't personally using, workplaces and the likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.164.2 (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean with 'libertarian socialist systems'? Have they ever existed? (Anarchist rule in Spain during the Civil War was short-lived.) I guess that most communist systems also have recognized the right to personal non-exploitable property. Stealing somebody else's clothes was forbidden there, as well, although it may not have been punished as severe as stealing state property. Bever (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

remove list of names

I've removed the list of people working on property rights. Reasons. 1. If they've done work, they should be used as references and linked in the article. 2. Where is there RS that says the particular people are prominent? – S. Rich (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Whole thing was copied from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cdip/2009/00000019/00000002/art00010, word for word. lol MilesMoney (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. It may be worthwhile to explore merges or creating new articles, but scope and content determinations aren't within the purview of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 23:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Property rights (economics) → Property rights – target page currently redirects to property but deserves an article of its own. See discussion at Talk:Property rights. Thanks, --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 18:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose you can create a new article at the redirect's location. This article on economics is fairly long on its own, and is not the primary topic per the linked to discussion. It would be better to start a new article instead of moving this one, after a new article is created, this article can continue to function as a more focused topic article that it already is. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE: The move will result in the deletion of the linked to discussion, so the two talk pages, if this were moved, should become archive pages, and a new talk page emplaced. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Apart from the lead, there is little in this article in its current form that is specific to economics. Most of it would apply as well to property rights more generally. The article is still fairly undeveloped, thus class=start. I would suggest broadening it at this time to address the subject more generally, including subsections on property rights from particular disciplinary perspectives, such as "Property rights in economics". Later on, as the article became more fully developed, it would be fine to spin off especially large subtopics. In the meanwhile, in my view, the general topic of property rights is too important to not have an article of its own. What's here would provide a good start... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am confused. I don't understand the distinction between "property" and "property rights". Don't you need the latter to have the former? In other words, once you lose your "rights", you have lost your property as well, i.e., one cannot own property without having "rights" to the property, unless, perhaps, one stole the property. So, if little of this is specific to economics, then why suggest creating a fork at "property rights". Perhaps it would be better to merge with the property article, in which the word rights is repeated many times. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You are right, of course. From one perspective, property is a 'bundle of rights', not a thing. What makes this problematic from an encyclopedic view, I think, is that the conventional view/ understanding of property is just the opposite, as a material 'thing'. Thus real property and property are conflated, along with property rights. In conventional understanding property & property rights are distinct... Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest merge per Wbm1058. The Property article is longish already, but this doesn't appear to be a distinct topic. If it "deserves an article of its own" please specify how? SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for your suggestion. While initially attractive, taking a look at the property article, I do not think it would be a good idea to merge this article with that one. The main property article is quite long already, with an emphasis primarily on the philosophy of property. (It might even make sense to spin off a History of property article from the main article.) Property rights, the subject of this article is an important topic in and of itself, I would argue. It is not a small topic; this article can be expanded quite a bit... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tony Honoré

Do these property rights relate in any way the Tony Honoré's understanding of "ownership"? (the 13 "badges of ownership" that is. Thx for an answer. Yotwen (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

New merge suggestion

Older merge discussions were about merging this article with property. However, there is also another relevant article: Right to property. I think that article and this one are about approximately the same topic: the right to have property, its acknowledgement in by society, law and international conventions and the advantages and disadvantages of this recognition. Although the perspective is different (legal and economical), I think there is enough relationship between both articles to justify a merge. Bever (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Move suggestion

This article does not deal with a different meaning of "right to property/property rights", so the "(economics)" part of the title is incorrect.

But the economic angle is a subtopic of the subject "right to property". So how about a move to "Economics of the right to property" or "Right to property in economics"? Iota (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Property rights (economics). 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) 02:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Property_rights_(economics)/Archive_1&oldid=1234976157"