Property

src: vakilsearch.com

Properties , in abstract, are property or with something, either as an attribute or as a component of the mentioned object. In the context of this article, it is one or more components (not attributes), whether physical or incorporeal, of one's possessions; or property, as it is owned by, a person or together a group of persons or legal entities such as corporations or even communities. Depending on the nature of the property, the property owner has the right to consume, change, share, redefine, lease, mortgage, mortgage, sell, swap, transfer, give or destroy it, or exclude others from doing these things, and possibly leave them; whereas regardless of the nature of the property, the owner has the right to use it properly (as durable, average or factor, or whatever), or at least exclusively defend it.

In economic and political economy, there are three broad forms of property: private property, public property, and collective property (also called cooperative property).

Properties that are jointly owned by more than one party may be owned or controlled in very similar or very different ways, either simply or complexly, whether or not equally. However, there is the expectation that the will of each party (somewhat wisdom) relating to the property must be clearly defined and unconditional, so as to distinguish the ownership and ease of the lease. The parties may expect their will to be unanimous, or alternately each giving of one of them, when no chance or possibility of dispute with another of them exists, can expect, he, or his own desire to be sufficient and absolute.

The First (Return) Statement on Property defines property as tangible, tangible or intangible in which the legal relationship between a person and a state imposes ownership ownership or a legal title in that regard. The mediation relationship between individuals, property and country is called the property regime.

In sociology and anthropology, property is often defined as the relationship between two or more individuals and objects, in which at least one of these individuals holds a bundle of rights to the object. The distinction between "collective property" and "private property" is regarded as confusion because different individuals often hold different rights to one object.

The most important types of recognized property include real property (a combination of land and any repairs on or on the ground), personal property (personal property of a person), private property (property held by legal persons, business entities or individual individuals) public property (public or public property and available ownership) and intellectual property (exclusive rights to artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always widely recognized or enforced. An article on a property may have a physical and incorporeal part. Title, or proprietary rights, establish relationships between property and others, ensuring the owner of the right to dispose of property as the owner desires.

Video Property

Ikhtisar

Often a property is defined by a local sovereign code, and is protected fully or more typically in part by that entity, the owner is responsible for the remaining protection. The evidentiary standard of proof of ownership is also handled by the local sovereign code, and the entity plays a corresponding, usually rather managerial, role. Some philosophers claim that property rights arise from social convention, while others find justification for them in morality or in the laws of nature.

Various scientific disciplines (such as law, economics, anthropology or sociology) can treat concepts more systematically, but definitions vary, especially when involving contracts. Positive law defines such rights, and the judiciary can judge and enforce property rights.

According to Adam Smith, the profit expectations of "fixing one's stock of capital" rest on private property. Capitalism has the primary assumption that property rights encourage holders to develop property, generate wealth, and allocate resources efficiently based on market operations. From this has evolved the modern conception of property as a right enforced by positive law, in the hope that this will result in more wealth and a better standard of living. However, Smith also expressed a very critical view of the effects of property law on inequality:

"Wherever there is a large property, there is great inequality... The civil government, so far instituted for property security, is in fact instituted to defend the rich against the poor, or from those who have some property against them who does not have it at all. "(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations )

In the text The Common Law , Oliver Wendell Holmes explains the property has two fundamental aspects. The first, ownership, can be defined as control over resources based on the practical inability of others to contradict the owner's end. The second, the title, is the expectation that others will recognize the right to control resources, even when it is not in possession. He outlines the differences between these two concepts, and proposes a history of how they are attached to people, as opposed to families or entities like the church.

• Classic liberalism embraces the theory of labor. They argue that each individual has their own life, it means that one must have the products of that life, and that the products can be traded in free exchange with others.

"Everyone has a property in himself.This guy has no right to it, but himself." (John Locke, Second Paper on Civil Administration )

"The reason men go into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke, Second Paper on Civil Administration )

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have legislation, instead, it is the fact that life, freedom, and property existed before which caused man to make laws in the first place." (FrÃÆ'Â © dÃÆ' Â © ric Bastiat, Law )

• Conservatism subscribes to the concept that freedom and property are closely related. That the greater the ownership of private property, the more stable and productive is a nation or nation. Leveling property economically, conservatively, especially of the forced type, is not economic progress.

"The property is separated from private property, and Leviathan becomes the ruler of all... On the basis of private ownership, a great civilization is built... conservatives recognize that property ownership fixes certain tasks over the owner; he accepts his moral and legal obligations with cheerful. "(Russell Kirk, Prudence Politics )

• The fundamental principles of socialism center on the critique of this concept, stating (among other things) that the cost of maintaining property exceeds the profits of private property ownership, and that, even when property rights encourage their holders to develop their property or generate wealth, they do so only for their own benefit, which may not be in accord with benefits to others or to the wider community.
• Libertarian socialism generally receives property, but with a short period of neglect. In other words, one must make (more or less) the continuous use of the item or lose property rights. This is usually referred to as "property ownership" or "use rights". Thus, in this system of tenure, absentee ownership is illegal and workers have other machinery or equipment they use.
• Communism believes that only collective ownership of the means of production through a government (though not necessarily state) will guarantee the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and maximize benefits, and therefore man must abolish private capital ownership properties).

Both communism and some types of socialism also support the idea that private ownership of capital is inherently invalid. This argument focuses primarily on the idea that private ownership of capital always benefits one upper class, thereby increasing the mastery through the use of this private capital. The Communists are not opposed to private property that is "laborious, self-contained, by itself" (as the Communist Manifesto puts it) by members of the proletariat. Both socialism and communism distinguish closely between private ownership of capital (land, plant, resources, etc.) and private property (houses, material things, etc.).

Property type

Most legal systems distinguish between different types of property, primarily between land (immovable property, land, real estate, real property) and all other forms of property - movable property or property, movable property or private property, including legal tender value if not tender law itself, as a producer rather than an owner may be its owner. They often distinguish tangible and intangible properties. A categorization scheme establishes three types of property: land, repairs (immovable human objects), and private property (man made objects).

In common law, property (immovable property) is a combination of interest in the land and its increase, and private property is of interest in moving property. Real property rights are rights related to land. These rights include ownership and use. Owners may grant rights to persons and entities in the form of leases, licenses, and easements.

Throughout the last century the second millennium, with the development of a more complex property theory, the concept of private property has been divided into real property (such as cars and clothing) and intangible property (such as financial instruments - including stocks and bonds - intellectual property - including patents, copyrights and trademarks - digital files, communication channels, and certain forms of identification - including Internet domain names, some form of network address, some form of handling, and more trademarks).

The treatment of intangible property is such that an item of property, by law or by any other means by traditional conceptualization, is subject to expiration even when it is inherited, which is a key distinction of a real property. After expiration, the property, if from the intellectual category, becomes part of the public domain, for use by but not owned by anyone, and may be used by more than one party simultaneously because of the absence of a scarcity of intellectual property. While things like communication channels and pairs of spectrum electromagnetic bands and signal transmission power can only be used by one party at a time, or one party in a context that can be shared, if owned or used altogether. So far or usually it is not considered a property, or at least not a private property, even if the party holding exclusive use rights may transfer that right to another.

Maps Property

Related concepts

From the following, only sales and distribution will involve no expense.

Violation

Miscellaneous action

src: www.terrischeer.com.au

Issues in property theory

What could be a property?

The two main justifications given for the original property, or the principle of the homestead, are effort and scarcity . John Locke emphasized the effort, "mixing your work" with an object, or cleaning and cultivating virgin soil. Benjamin Tucker would rather see telos properties, ie. What is the purpose of the property? The answer: to overcome the problem of scarcity. Only when the goods are relatively rare in relation to the wishes of the people whether they become property. For example, hunter-gatherers do not regard land as property, because there is no shortage of land. Agrarian societies then make fertile soil, because it is rare. For something that is economically scarce, of course it should have exclusivity property - used by one person excluding others from using it. These two justifications lead to different conclusions about what can be a property. Intellectual property - incorporeal things like ideas, plans, sequences and arrangements (musical compositions, novels, computer programs) - are generally considered legitimate properties for those who support justification but are invalid for those who support the justification of scarcity, it does not have the exclusivity of property (however, those who support the justification of scarcity can still support other "intellectual property" laws such as Copyright, have been subject to contracts rather than government arbitration). So even a vibrant perky may disagree about IP. By any standard, one's body belongs to a person.

From some anarchic point of view, the validity of the property depends on whether "property rights" requires law enforcement by the state. Different forms of "property" require a different amount of enforcement: intellectual property requires much state intervention to uphold, far-reaching physical property ownership requires considerably, the ownership of the objects carried requires very little, while possession of the body itself requires absolutely no state intervention. Some anarchists do not believe in property at all.

Many things have existed that have no owners, sometimes called commons. The term "commons", however, is also often used to mean something very different: "common collective ownership" - that is. joint ownership. Also, the same term sometimes used by a statist means a government property that the public permits to access (public property). Laws in all societies tend to thrive to reduce the number of things that do not have a clear owner. Property rights advocates argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources, because of shared tragedies, while critics argue that it leads to the 'exploitation' of those resources for personal gain and it inhibits harnessing potential network effects. These arguments have different validities for different types of "properties" - things that are not scarce, for example, are not subject to a common tragedy. Some critics obviously advocate general collective ownership rather than having no owner.

Matters that have no owners include: ideas (except for intellectual property), sea water (which, however, are protected by anti-pollution laws), part of the seafloor (see the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for restrictions) , gases in the Earth's atmosphere, animals in the wild (although in most countries, animals are tied to the ground.In the United States and Canada, wildlife is generally defined in legislation as state property.This public ownership of wildlife is called the Conservation Model Wildlife North America and based on the Doctrine of Public Belief.), Celestial bodies and outer space, and land in Antarctica.

The nature of children under the age of majority is another issue that is contested here. In ancient societies, children were generally regarded as belonging to their parents. Children in modern societies theoretically have their own bodies but are not considered competent to exercise their rights, and their parents or guardians are given the most control over them.

Questions about the nature of body ownership also appear in issues of abortion, drugs and euthanasia.

In many ancient legal systems (eg ancient Roman law), religious sites (eg temples) are considered to be God's or devas devoted to them. However, religious pluralism makes it more convenient to have a religious site owned by a religious body that runs it.

Intellectual property and air (air space, no-fly zones, pollution laws, which may include tradable emissions rights) may become property in some sense of the word.

Land tenure may be held separately from the ownership of the land rights, including sports rights, mineral rights, development rights, air rights, and other rights that may be eligible to be separated from simple land ownership.

Who can be the owner?

The law of ownership can vary greatly among states depending on the properties of attractive property (eg firearms, real property, private property, animals). People can own properties directly. In most societies, legal entities, such as corporations, trusts, and states (or governments) own property.

In many countries, women have limited access to property that follows inheritance laws and restrictive family law, where only men have an actual or formal right to own property.

In the Inca empire, the dead emperor, who is considered a god, still controls property after death.

What and to what extent the state may interfere with the

property

Under United States law, the main limitation on whether and to what extent the State may disrupt property rights is established by the Constitution. The "Taking" clause requires that the government (whether state or federal - for clause 14 of the Amendment process apply, impose a fifth Amendment reimbursement clause on the state government) may take private property only for public purposes, after carrying out legal proceedings, and when making "just compensation." If an interest is not regarded as a "property" right or such action is merely a deliberate infringement, these restrictions do not apply and the sovereign immune doctrine hinders the aid. Moreover, if the disturbance does not entirely make the property of no value, the interruption will not be taken as a retrieval, but only a usage rule. On the other hand, some government regulations on the use of property have been deemed so severe that it is considered a "rule takeover". In addition, sometimes behavior that is considered only as a nuisance or other error has been done by taking a property where the behavior is quite persistent and severe.

src: www.onthemarket.com

Theory

There are many theories of property. One is the relatively rare first property theory of property, in which the possession of something is seen as justified only by someone who captures something before others do so. Perhaps one of the most popular is the definition of the natural rights of property as promoted by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that God gave dominion over nature to man through Adam in Genesis. Therefore, he theorizes that when one mixes one's labor with nature, he gets in contact with that part of nature by which labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there must be "sufficient, and equally good, left for others" (see proviso lockean)

From RERUM NOVARUM, Pope Leo XIII writes, "It must be undeniable that when a man engages in a profitable work, the motives and motives that drive his work are to acquire property, and after that to defend it as his own."

Anthropology studies various proprietary systems, rights of use and transfer, and ownership under the term "property theory." Western legal theory is based, as mentioned, on property owners being legal persons. However, not all property systems are established on this basis.

In every culture studied ownership and possession are subject to customs and regulations, and "laws" in which the term can be applied meaningfully. Many tribal cultures balance individual ownership with the law of collective groups: tribe, family, association and nation. For example, the Cherokee Constitution of 1839 framed the problem in the following terms:

Seconds. 2. Cherokee Land will remain a common property; but the improvements made thereon, and in the possession of individual citizens who are created, or entitled to be their property: Provided that citizens who have exclusive and unlimited rights to their repairs, as stated in this article, shall have no right or power to dispose of their remedies, by any means, to the United States, individual States, or to their respective citizens; and that, every time every citizen shall waive its effect out of the limits of this Nation, and become a citizen of another government, all his rights and privileges as a citizen shall cease: Provided, however, that the National Council shall have the power to reclaimed, by law, for all citizenship rights, any person or person who may, at any time, wish to return to the Nation, to memorialize the National Council for such reversion.

The communal property system describes ownership as belonging to all social and political units. Such an arrangement may under certain circumstances erode open access resources. This development has been criticized by the tragedy of the common property.

The enterprise system describes ownership as embedded in groups that can be identified with responsible individuals. Roman property law is based on such a corporate system. In a famous paper that contributed to the creation of law and economics in the late 1960s, American scholar Harold Demsetz described how the concept of property rights made social interaction easier:

In the world of Robinson Crusoe property does not play a role. Right of ownership is a tool of society and gains their significance from the fact that they help a person form expectations that he can maintain in relation to others. This expectation finds expression in the laws, customs, and customs of society. A proprietor has the consent of others to enable him to act in a certain way. An owner expects the community to prevent others from interfering with his actions, provided that this action is not prohibited in the specification of his rights.

Different societies may have different property theories for different types of ownership. Pauline Peters argues that the property system is inseparable from the social order, and the notion of property can not be expressed as such, but can instead be framed in negative terms: for example the taboo system among the Polynesians.

src: webpostingmart.com

Property in philosophy

In medieval and renaissance Europe the term "property" basically refers to the land. After much rethinking, the soil has been considered only as a special case of the property genus. This rethinking is inspired by at least three early modern European features: a spike in trade, the breaking of attempts to ban interest (later called "riba"), and the development of a centralized national monarchy.

Ancient philosophy

Urukagina, king of the state-of-Sumatra state Lagash, established the first law to ban property sales.

The Ten Commandments shown in Exodus 20: 2-17 and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21 state that the Israelites did not steal, but the relationship between the concepts of Bronze Age Theft and modern property concepts was suspected.

Aristotle, within Politics, supports "private property." He argues that self-interest leads to the neglect of the common property. "The common hat for the greatest number has the lowest care given to him, and everyone thinks primarily of himself, almost completely non-public interest, and only when he himself is concerned as an individual."

In addition he says that when property is common, there are natural problems that arise due to differences in labor: "If they do not share the same pleasure and work, those who work a lot and get a little will always complain about those who work a little and accept or consume but there is always a difficulty in men who live together and have all the same human relationships, but especially in having their similarities. "( Politics, 1261b34 )

Cicero argues that there is no private property under natural law but only under human law. Seneca views property as a necessity when humans become greed. St. Ambrose, who last adopted this view and St. Augustine even scorned heresies for complaining that the emperor could not confiscate the property they had earned.

Medieval philosophy

Thomas Aquinas (13th-century)

Canonical Law Decretum Gratiani states that only the human law creates the property, repeating the phrase used by St. Augustine. St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with respect to personal consumption of property but a modified patristic theory in finding that private ownership of property is necessary. Thomas Aquinas concludes that, with certain detailed provisions,

• it's natural for humans to have external stuff
• It is legal for a man to have something as his own
• The essence of theft consists of taking someone else's property secretly
• theft and robbery are the sins of various species, and robbery is a sadder sin than theft
• theft is a sin; it is also a mortal sin
• It is, however, legitimate to steal through the stress of need: "in case it requires all things to be joint property."

Modern philosophy

Thomas Hobbes (17th century) Thomas Hobbes (17th century)

James Harrington (17th century)

A contemporary of Hobbes, James Harrington, reacts to the same disorder in a different way: he considers nature inevitable. Author of Oceana, he was probably the first political theorist to postulate that political power is a consequence, not a cause, of property distribution. He said that the worst situation was a situation where the commoners owned half the state property, with the crown and the noble holding the other half - a situation of instability and violence. A much better situation (a stable republic) will exist once the commoners own most of the property, he suggests.

In subsequent years, Harrington's admirers included American revolutionaries and founder John Adams. Robert Philmer (17th century) Robert Filmer (17th century)

Another member of Hobbes/Harrington's generation, Sir Robert Filmer, reached a conclusion like Hobbes, but through biblical interpretation. Filmer says that the institution of the king's position is the same as the father, that the subject is only a child, obedient or unruly, and that property rights are the same as household goods that a father can afford among his children - to be taken back and discard it in accordance with his pleasure. John Locke (17th century)

In the next generation, John Locke attempted to answer Filmer, creating a rationale for a balanced constitution in which the king had a part to play, but not an extraordinary part. Because the view of Filmer basically entails that the Stuart family is uniquely descended from the patriarch of the Bible, and even since the late seventeenth century which was a difficult view to uphold, Locke attacked Filmer's view in his First Treatise on Government, liberating him to set out his own view within Second Paper on Civil Administration. There, Locke envisioned the pre-social world, each of the unhappy population willing to make a social contract because otherwise, "the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is extremely insecure, extremely unsafe," and hence "the great and the head of the head, therefore, uniting men into the commonwealth, and placing themselves under government, is the preservation of their property." They will, he allowed, create monarchies, but his task is to execute the will of the elected legislature. "For this purpose" (to achieve a predetermined goal), he writes, "it is that men surrender all their natural forces to the communities they enter, and society places the legislative power into the hands they deem appropriate, with this belief , that they will be governed by a declared law, or else their peace, tranquility, and property will remain at the same uncertainty as in the state of nature. "

Even when it remained in the right legislative form, though, Locke argued that there was a limit to what the government set by such a contract might be right to do.

"It is unpredictable that [their hypothetical contractors] should intend, whether they have the power to do so, to grant one or more absolute arbitrary powers over their people and plantations, and put power into the hands of judges to execute unrestricted will be arbitrary over them, this is to put themselves in a worse condition than the state of nature, where they have the freedom to defend their right to the injury of others, and are at the same strength to defend it, whether attacked by a single man or many in combining, while assuming they have surrendered themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have stripped themselves of themselves, and armed him to make prey from them when he was pleased... "

Note that both "planters" and "plantations" must be protected from the arbitrary powers of any judge, including "the strength and will of a legislator." In Lockean terms, the depredations of an estate are as likely to justify resistance and revolution as to people. In both cases it is the subject necessary to allow themselves to fall prey.

To explain property ownership, Locke proposed a labor theory.

David Hume (18th century)

Unlike the figures discussed in this section so far David Hume has lived a relatively quiet life that has turned into a relatively stable social and political structure. He lived the life of a solitary writer until 1763 when, at the age of 52, he went to Paris to work at the British embassy.

On the contrary, one might think, for his polemic to work on the religion and his skeptical epistemology motivated by empiricism, Hume's view of law and property is quite conservative.

He does not believe in hypothetical contracts, or in human love in general, and seeks to ground politics on real people as people who know them. "In general," he wrote, "it can be asserted that there is no passion in the human mind, like human love, only because of it, regardless of personal quality, or service, or relationship with ourselves." Existing customs should not be ignored, because they have become as it is because of human nature. With this adat endorsement there is support from the existing government, as it considers them to be complementary: "One thing for liberty, though laudable desires, should generally be subordinate to the respect for the established government."

Therefore, Hume's view is that there is property right because and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social custom, secures it. He offers some practical home suggestions on the general subject, though, as when he refers to greed as "spurring the industry," and expressed concern about the excessive rate of taxation, which "destroys industry, with despair."

Adam Smith

"The civil government, so far institutionalized for property security, is, in fact, institutionalized to defend the rich against the poor, or those who have property against those who have none."

"The property that everyone owns in his own work, because it is the original foundation of all other properties, so it is the most sacred and unbreakable.The heirlooms of the poor lie in the strength and dexterity of his hands, and to prevent him from using this power and dexterity with what he thinks is right without injury to his neighbors is a real violation of this most sacred property.This is a real encroachment of fair freedom from the workers, as well as from those who may be inclined to hire him, because it prevents people from working according to what he thinks that it is appropriate to dissuade others from employing people they deem appropriate. To judge whether he is worthy of employment, must be trusted by the employer's wisdom The interests he is concerned about, the anxiety affected by the lawgiver in case they have to hire someone who is not pan bag, proved to be rude because it was oppressive. "- (Source: Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations , 1776, Book I, Chapter X, Part II.)

By the mid-19th century, the industrial revolution had changed Britain and the United States, and had begun in France. The established conception of what constitutes a property is expanded beyond the ground to include rare items in general. In France, the revolution of 1790 led to a massive seizure of land previously owned by the church and the king. The restoration of the monarchy led to claims by the captured people to have their land back.

Karl Marx

Part VIII, "Primitive Accumulation" Capital involves criticism of the Liberal Theory of property rights. Marx notes that under Feudal Law, peasants are legally entitled to their land as an aristocracy to their ancestors. Marx cites several historical events in which large numbers of peasants were removed from their lands, later seized by the aristocracy. The seized land is then used for commercial business (sheep head). Marx sees this "Primitive Accumulation as an integral part of the creation of British Capitalism, which created a large, landless class that must work for wages in order to survive." Marx asserts that Liberal property theory is a "beautiful" fairy tale that conceals violence, the historical process.

Charles Comte - the legitimate property of

Charles Comte, in the Traità © à © de la proprià © à © tà ©  © (1834), sought to justify the legitimacy of private ownership in response to the Bourbon Restoration. According to David Hart, the Comte has three main points: "first, that state intervention for centuries in property ownership has terrible consequences for justice as well as for economic productivity, secondly, property is legitimate when it arises in a way not to hurt anyone, and thirdly, that historically some, but by no means all, evolved properties have done so legally, with the implication that the distribution of the current property is a complex mix of legitimate and unauthorized titles. "

The Comte, as did Proudhon, rejected the Roman legal tradition with its tolerance to slavery. He proposes a communal "national" property made up of scarce items, such as land in an ancient hunter-gatherer society. Since farming is much more efficient than hunting and gathering, private property is used by someone to farm the remaining hunter-gatherers with more land per person, and therefore not harm them. Thus, this type of land tenure does not violate the Lockean provisions - there is "still enough, and as a good left." The Comte analysis will be used by later theorists in response to socialist criticism of property.

Pierre Proudhon - property is theft

In his 1849 treatise What is a Property? , Pierre Proudhon responded with "Property is theft!" In natural resources, he looks at two types of property, de jure properties (legal rights) and de facto property (physical ownership), and argues that the former is invalid. Proudhon's conclusion is that "property, to be fair and possible, must always have equality for its condition."

His analysis of the work on natural resources as property (right of use) is more nuanced. He asserted that the land itself can not be owned, but must be held by the individual owner as a maid of mankind with a work product that belongs to the producer. Proudhon reasoned that any wealth acquired without labor was stolen from those who worked hard to create that wealth. Even voluntary contracts for handing over labor products to employers are theft, according to Proudhon, because natural resource controllers have no moral right to sue others for the use of what they do not earn to make and therefore have no.

Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the early socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Mikhail Bakunin who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonist theorists such as Karl Marx.

FrÃÆ'  © dà <  © ric Bastiat - property is a value

The main article of Frà © ntica Bastiat about the property can be found in chapter 8 of his book Economic Harmonies (1850). In a radical departure from traditional property theory, it defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with an object. Thus, saying someone has a glass of water is just a short word abbreviation for I may just give a gift or exchange this water with others . In essence, what belongs to is not an object but a value of an object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value ; He stressed that this is very different from utility. "In our relationship with each other, we are not the owners of utility things, but their value, and value are judgments made from mutual services."

Bastiat theorized that, as a result of technological advances and division of labor, the stock of communal property increased over time; that unskilled workers' working hours spend time buying for example 100 liters of wheat declines over time, thus providing "free" satisfaction. Thus, private property continues to destroy itself, transformed into communal wealth. Increasing the proportion of communal property into private property produces a tendency toward the equality of mankind. "Because the human race starts from the greatest poverty point, that is, from the point where there are many obstacles to overcome, it is clear that everything that has been gained from one era to the next has matured for the spirit of property."

This transformation of private property into the communal domain, Bastiat says, does not mean that private ownership will disappear completely. This is because humans, as they progress, continually create new and more sophisticated needs and desires.

Andrew J. Galambos - exact property definition

Andrew J. Galambos (1924-1997) is an astrophysicist and philosopher who innovates a social structure that seeks to maximize human peace and freedom. The concept of Galambos property is the basis of his philosophy. He defines property as human life and all non-procreation derivatives from his life. (Because English lacks in eliminating feminine from "human" when referring to humans, it is implicit and obligatory that feminine belongs in the term "human".)

Galambos teaches that property is important for non-coercive social structures. That is why he defines freedom as follows: "Freedom is a condition of society that exists when every individual has full control (100%) of his own property." Galambos defines properties having the following elements:

• Primordial property , which is an individual's life
• Primary property , which includes ideas, thoughts, and actions
• Secondary property , which includes all tangible and intangible goods that are derived from the individual's primary property.

Properties include all non-procreation derivatives from individual life; this means that children do not belong to their parents. and "main property" (one's own idea).

Galambos emphasized repeatedly that the real government exists to protect the property and that the state attacks the property. For example, countries need payment for their services in the form of taxes whether people want the service or not. Because someone's money is his, the foreclosure of money in taxes is an attack on property. Military conscripts are also an attack on a person's primordial property.

Contemporary look

Contemporary political thinkers who believe that natural persons enjoy the right to own property and enter into contracts support two views of John Locke. On the one hand, some admire Locke, like W.H. Hutt (1956), who praised Locke for putting "quintessence of individualism". On the other hand, they like Richard Pipes regard Locke's argument as weak, and think that excessive dependence on it has weakened the cause of individualism in recent times. Pipes has written that Locke's work "marks the regression of relying on the concept of the Law of Nature" rather than on the sociological framework of Harrington.

Hernando de Soto argues that the essential characteristic of a capitalist market economy is the protection of a functioning state of property in a formal property system that clearly records ownership and transactions. This proprietary right and the entire formal system of property allows:

• Greater independence for individuals from local community settings to protect their assets
• Clear, provable, and protected ownership
• Standardize and integrate property rules and property information in an entire country
• Increased confidence arising from greater certainty of penalties for having an affair in economic transactions
• A more formal and complex written ownership statement that enables easier assumption of risk and joint ownership in the company, and risk insurance
• The availability of larger loans for new projects, as more things can serve as collateral for loans
• Easier access to and more reliable information on things like credit history and asset values ​​
• Increased fungibility, standardization, and transfer of statements documenting property ownership, paving the way for structures such as the national market for enterprises and the ease of transporting property through the complex network of individuals and other entities
• Better biodiversity protection as it minimizes shifting agricultural practices

All of the above, according to de Soto, increase economic growth.

src: thebusinessinbox.com

See also

Property granting (legal)

Property retrieval (legal)

Real estate capture (illegal)

• Theft

Exclusive or discretionary relational construction

src: cache-blog.credit.com

References

src: financialtribune.com

Bibliography

• Bastiat, Frà © monica, 1850. Economic Harmony. W. Hayden Boyers.
• Bastiat, FrÃÆ' © dÃÆ' Â © ric, 1850. "The Law", tr. Dean Russell.
• Bethell, Tom, 1998. The Noble Victory: Wealth and Prosperity through the Ages . New York: St. Martin's Press.
• Blackstone, William, 1765-69. Comments on English Law , 4 vols. Oxford Univ. Press. Especially the Second and Third Books.
• De Soto, Hernando, 1989. Other Streets . Harper & amp; Line.
• De Soto, Hernando, and Francis Cheneval, 2006. Realizing the Wealth Rights . Crashed & amp; Scrub.
• Ellickson, Robert, 1993. "" Property in the Land " (PDF) . Archived from the original (PDF) in 2008 -04-09. Ã, (6.40Ã, MB) ", Yale Law Journal 102: 1315-1400.
• Fruehwald, Edwin, 2010. Basic Biological Rights, 19 Interdisciplinary Journal of Southern California 195.
• Mckay, John P., 2004, "A History of World Societies". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
• Palda, Filip (2011) Pareto Republic and the New Science of Peace 2011 [2] chapter online. Published by Cooper-Wolfling. ISBN 978-0987788009
• Pipes, Richard, 1999. Property and Freedom . New York: Knopf Doubleday. ISBN: 978-0375404986

src: naimproperties.com.my

External links

• Property related citations in Wikiquote
• Property Concept, Hugh Breakey, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• "Right to Private Property", Tibor Machan, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Friedmann, Wolfgang (1974). "Owned". In Wiener, Philip P. Historical Dictionary of Ideas: Study of Selected Pivotal Ideas . Volume 3 (University of Virginia, Center for Electronic Texts.). New York: Scribners. pp.Ã, 650-657.

Source of the article : Wikipedia