Editing Property (section)

== Property in philosophy ==
In [[medieval]] and [[Renaissance]] [[Europe]] the term "property" essentially referred to land. After much rethinking, land has come to be regarded as only a special case of the property genus. This rethinking was inspired by at least three broad features of early modern Europe: the surge of commerce, the breakdown of efforts to prohibit [[interest]] (then called "[[usury]]"), and the development of centralized national [[monarchy|monarchies]].

=== Ancient philosophy ===
[[Urukagina]], the king of the [[Sumer]]ian city-state [[Lagash]], established the first laws that forbade compelling the sale of property.<ref>[[Samuel Noah Kramer]]. "From the Tablets of Sumer: Twenty-Five Firsts in Man's Recorded History." Indian Hills: The Falcon's Wing Press, 1956.</ref>

The Bible in [[Leviticus]] 19:11 and 19:13 states that the [[Israelites]] are not to steal.<ref>{{bibleverse|Leviticus|19:11-13|HE}}</ref>

[[Aristotle]], in ''Politics,'' advocates "private property".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/pipes-property.html|title=Property and Freedom|website=www.nytimes.com|access-date=2018-01-10}}</ref> He argues that self-interest leads to neglect of the commons. "[T]hat which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest, and only when he is himself concerned as an individual."<ref>This bears some similarities to the over-use argument of Garrett Hardin's "[[Tragedy of the Commons]]."</ref>

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 equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much. But indeed, there is always a difficulty in men living together and having all human relations in common, but especially in their having common property." ([http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH19C/tutorial10.html ''Politics, 1261b34''])

[[Cicero]] held that there is no private property under [[natural law]] but only under [[human law]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Carlyle |first1=A.J. |title=Property: Its Duties and Rights |date=1913 |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |page=121 |url=https://archive.org/stream/propertyitsdutie00gorerich#page/122/mode/1up |access-date=4 April 2015}}  citing Cicero, [[De officiis]], i. 7, "Sunt autem privata nulla natura".</ref>  [[Seneca the Younger|Seneca]] viewed property as only becoming necessary when men become avaricious.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Carlyle |first1=A.J. |title=Property: Its Duties and Rights |date=1913 |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |page=122 |url=https://archive.org/stream/propertyitsdutie00gorerich#page/122/mode/1up |access-date=4 April 2015}} citing Seneca, Epistles, xiv, 2.</ref>  [[St. Ambrose]] later adopted this view and [[St. Augustine]] even derided heretics for complaining the Emperor could not confiscate property they had labored for.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Carlyle |first1=A.J. |title=Property: Its Duties and Rights |date=1913 |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |page=125 |url=https://archive.org/stream/propertyitsdutie00gorerich#page/125/mode/1up |access-date=4 April 2015}}</ref>

=== Medieval philosophy ===

==== Thomas Aquinas (13th century) ====
The canon law ''[[Decretum Gratiani]]'' maintained that mere human law creates property, repeating the phrases used by St. Augustine.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Carlyle |first1=A.J. |title=Property: Its Duties and Rights |date=1913 |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |page=127 |url=https://archive.org/stream/propertyitsdutie00gorerich#page/127/mode/1up |access-date=4 April 2015}}  citing Decretum, D. viii. Part I.</ref>  [[St. Thomas Aquinas]] agreed with regard to the private consumption of property but modified patristic theory in finding that the private possession of property is necessary.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Carlyle |first1=A.J. |title=Property: Its Duties and Rights |date=1913 |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |page=128 |url=https://archive.org/stream/propertyitsdutie00gorerich#page/128/mode/1up |access-date=4 April 2015}}</ref>  Thomas Aquinas concludes that, given certain detailed provisions,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm |title=Summa Theologica: Theft and robbery (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 66) |access-date=14 May 2015}}</ref>
* it is natural for man to possess external things
* it is lawful for a man to possess a thing as his own
* The essence of theft consists in taking another's thing secretly
* Theft and robbery are sins of different species, and robbery is a more grievous sin than theft
* theft is a sin; it is also a [[mortal sin]]
* it is, however, lawful to steal through stress of need:" in cases of need, all things are common property."

===Modern philosophy===

==== Thomas Hobbes (17th century) ====
The principal writings of [[Thomas Hobbes]] appeared between 1640 and 1651—during and immediately following [[First English Civil War|the war between forces]] loyal to King [[Charles I of England|Charles I]] and those loyal to [[Parliament]]. In his own words, Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of [[Cicero]]. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own?

==== James Harrington (17th century) ====

A contemporary of Hobbes, [[James Harrington (author)|James Harrington]], reacted to the same tumult differently: he considered property natural but not inevitable. The author of "[[Oceana (book)|Oceana]]," he may have been the first political theorist to postulate that political power is a consequence, not the cause, of the distribution of property. He said that the worst possible situation is when the commoners have half a nation's property, with the crown and nobility holding the other half—a circumstance fraught with instability and violence. He suggested a much better situation (a stable republic) would exist once the commoners own most property.

In later years, the ranks of Harrington's admirers included American revolutionary and founder [[John Adams]].

==== Robert Filmer (17th century) ====

Another member of the Hobbes/Harrington generation, Sir [[Robert Filmer]], reached conclusions much like Hobbes', but through [[Biblical]] [[exegesis]]. Filmer said that the institution of kingship is analogous to that of fatherhood, that subjects are still, children, whether obedient or unruly and that property rights are akin to the household goods that a father may dole out among his children—his to take back and dispose of according to his pleasure.

==== John Locke (17th century) ====

In the following generation, [[John Locke]] sought to answer Filmer, creating a rationale for a balanced [[constitution]] in which the monarch had a part to play, but not an overwhelming part. Since Filmer's views essentially require that the [[House of Stuart|Stuart]] family be uniquely descended from the [[patriarchs]] of the [[Bible]], and even in the late 17th century, that was a difficult view to uphold, Locke attacked Filmer's views in his [[Two Treatises of Government#First Treatise|First Treatise on Government]], freeing him to set out his own views in the [[Second Treatise on Civil Government]]. Therein, Locke imagined a pre-social world each of the unhappy residents which are willing to create a [[social contract]] because otherwise, "the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure," and therefore, the "great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property."<ref>John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Civil Government" (1690), Chap. IX, §§&nbsp;123–124.</ref> They would, he allowed, create a [[monarchy]], but its task would be to execute the will of an elected legislature. "To this end" (to achieve the previously specified goal), he wrote, "it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the [[Legislative power]] into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the [[state of nature]]."<ref>John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Civil Government" (1690), Chap. XI, §&nbsp;136.</ref>

Even when it keeps to proper legislative form, Locke held that there are limits to what a government established by such a contract might rightly do.

<blockquote> "It cannot be supposed that [the hypothetical contractors] they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give anyone or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the State of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given themselves up to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases..."<ref>John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Civil Government" (1690), Chap. XI, §&nbsp;137.</ref></blockquote>

Both "persons" and "estates" are to be protected from the arbitrary power of any magistrate, including legislative power and will." In Lockean terms, depredations against an estate are just as plausible a justification for resistance and revolution as are those against persons. In neither case are subjects required to allow themselves to become prey.

To explain the ownership of property, Locke advanced a [[labor theory of property]].

==== David Hume (18th century) ====

In contrast to the figures discussed in this section thus far [[David Hume]] lived a relatively quiet life that had settled down to a relatively stable social and political structure. He lived the life of a solitary writer until 1763 when, at 52 years of age, he went off to [[Paris]] to work at the British embassy.

In contrast, one might think to his polemical works on [[religion]] and his [[empiricism]]-driven [[philosophical skepticism|skeptical]] [[epistemology]], Hume's views on law and property were quite conservative.

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

Therefore, Hume's view was that there are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them.<ref>This view is reflected in the opinion of the [[United States Supreme Court]] in "[[United States v. Willow River Power Co.]]".</ref> He offered some practical home-spun advice on the general subject, though, as when he referred to [[avarice]] as "the spur of [[Private industry|industry]]," and expressed concern about excessive levels of taxation, which "destroy industry, by engendering despair."

====Adam Smith====
{{blockquote| "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all." | [[Adam Smith]], ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', 1776<ref>''[[An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations]]'', by [[Adam Smith]], Cooke & Hale, 1818, p. 167</ref>}}

"The property that every man has in his labour is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The inheritance of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands, and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty of the workman and those who might be disposed to employ him. It hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper. To judge whether he is fit to be employed may surely be trusted to the discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ an improper person is as impertinent as it is oppressive."
— (Source: [[Adam Smith]], ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', 1776, Book I, Chapter X, Part II.)

By the mid 19th century, the industrial revolution had transformed England and the United States and had begun in France. As a result, the conventional conception of what constitutes property expanded beyond land to encompass scarce goods. In France, the revolution of the 1790s had led to large-scale confiscation of land formerly owned by the church and king. The restoration of the monarchy led to claims by those dispossessed to have their former lands returned.

====Karl Marx====

Section VIII, "[[Primitive accumulation of capital|Primitive Accumulation]]" of Capital involves a critique of Liberal Theories of property rights. Marx notes that under Feudal Law, peasants were legally entitled to their land as the aristocracy was to its manors. Marx cites several historical events in which large numbers of the peasantry were removed from their lands, then seized by the nobility. This seized land was then used for commercial ventures (sheep herding). Marx sees this "Primitive Accumulation" as integral to the creation of English Capitalism. This event created a sizeable un-landed class that had to work for wages to survive. Marx asserts that liberal theories of property are "idyllic" fairy tales that hide a violent historical process.

==== Charles Comte: legitimate origin of property ====

[[Charles Comte]], in "Traité de la propriété" (1834), attempted to justify the legitimacy of private property in response to the [[Bourbon Restoration in France|Bourbon Restoration]]. According to David Hart, Comte had three main points: "firstly, that interference by the state over the centuries in property ownership has had dire consequences for justice as well as for economic productivity; secondly, that property is legitimate when it emerges in such a way as not to harm anyone; and thirdly, that historically some, but by no means all, property which has evolved has done so legitimately, with the implication that the present distribution of property is a complex mixture of legitimately and illegitimately held titles."<ref>[http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/ComteDunoyer/Ch6.html#RTFToC4 ''The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060130070015/http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/ComteDunoyer/Ch6.html |date=2006-01-30 }}</ref>

Comte, as Proudhon later did, rejected [[Roman law|Roman legal tradition]] with its toleration of slavery. Instead, he posited a communal "national" property consisting of non-scarce goods, such as land in ancient hunter-gatherer societies. Since agriculture was so much more efficient than hunting and gathering, private property appropriated by someone for farming left remaining hunter-gatherers with more land per person and hence did not harm them. Thus this type of land appropriation did not violate the [[Lockean proviso]] – there was "still enough, and as good left." Later theorists would use Comte's analysis in response to the socialist critique of property.

==== Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: property is theft ====
{{Main|Property is theft!}}

In his 1840 treatise ''What is Property?'', [[Pierre Proudhon]] answers with "[[Property is theft!]]". In natural resources, he sees two types of property, ''de jure'' property (legal title) and ''de facto'' property (physical possession), and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon's conclusion is that "property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition."

His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property ([[usufruct]]) is more nuanced. He asserts that land itself cannot be property, yet it should be held by individual possessors as stewards of humanity, with the product of labor being the producer's property. Proudhon reasoned that any wealth gained without labor was stolen from those who labored to create that wealth. Even a voluntary contract to surrender the product of work to an employer was theft, according to Proudhon, since the controller of natural resources had no moral right to charge others for the use of that which he did not labor to create did not own.

Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as [[Mikhail Bakunin]] who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like [[Karl Marx]].

==== Frédéric Bastiat: property is value ====

[[Frédéric Bastiat]] 's main treatise on property can be found in chapter 8 of his book "Economic Harmonies" (1850).<ref>{{cite book |title=Bastiat: Economic Harmonies }}</ref> In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property, not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people concerning a thing. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for "I may justly gift or trade this water to another person." In essence, what one owns is not the object but the object's value. By "value," Bastiat means "market value"; he emphasizes this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services."

Bastiat theorized that, as a result of technological progress and the division of labor, the stock of communal wealth increases over time; that the hours of work an unskilled laborer expends to buy e.g., 100 liters of wheat, decreases over time, thus amounting to "gratis" satisfaction.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=79&chapter=35530&layout=html&Itemid=27 |title=Economic Harmonies (Boyers trans.) – Online Library of Liberty |access-date=14 May 2015}}</ref> Thus, private property continually destroys itself, becoming transformed into communal wealth. The increasing proportion of communal wealth to private property results in a tendency toward equality of humanity. "Since the human race began in greatest poverty, that is, when there were the most obstacles to overcome, all that has been achieved from one era to the next is due to the spirit of property."

This transformation of private property into the communal domain, Bastiat points out, does not imply that personal property will ever totally disappear. On the contrary, this is because man, as he progresses, continually invents new and more sophisticated needs and desires.

==== Andrew J. Galambos: a precise definition of property ====

[[Andrew Joseph Galambos|Andrew J. Galambos]] (1924–1997) was an astrophysicist and philosopher who innovated a social structure that sought to maximize human peace and freedom. Galambos' concept of property was essential to his philosophy. He defined property as a man's life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life. (Because the English language is deficient in omitting the feminine from "man" when referring to humankind, it is implicit and obligatory that the feminine is included in the term "man.")

Galambos taught that property is essential to a non-coercive social structure. He defined freedom as follows: "Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (100%) control over his property."<ref>Galambos, Andrew (1999). Sic Itur Ad Astra. San Diego, California: The Universal Scientific Publications Company, Inc. pp. 868–869. {{ISBN|0-88078-004-5}}.</ref> Galambos defines property as having the following elements:
* Primordial property, which is an individual's life
* Primary property, which includes ideas, thoughts, and actions
* Secondary property includes all tangible and intangible possessions that are derivatives of the individual's primary property.

Property includes all non-procreative derivatives of an individual's life; this means children are not the property of their parents.<ref>Galambos, Andrew (1999). Sic Itur Ad Astra. San Diego, California: The Universal Scientific Publications Company, Inc. p. 23. {{ISBN|0-88078-004-5}}.</ref> and "primary property" (a person's own ideas).<ref>Galambos, Andrew (1999). Sic Itur Ad Astra. San Diego, California: The Universal Scientific Publications Company, Inc. pp. 39, 52, 84, 92–93, 153, 201, 326. {{ISBN|0-88078-004-5}}.</ref>

Galambos repeatedly emphasized that actual government exists to protect property and that the State attacks property.
For example, the State requires payment for its services in the form of taxes whether or not people desire such services. Since an individual's money is his property, the confiscation of money in the form of taxes is an attack on property. Military conscription is likewise an attack on a person's primordial property.

===Contemporary views===

Contemporary political thinkers who believe that natural persons enjoy rights to own property and enter into contracts espouse two views about John Locke. On the one hand, some admire Locke, such as [[William Harold Hutt|William H. Hutt]] (1956), who praised Locke for laying down the "quintessence of individualism." On the other hand, those such as [[Richard Pipes]] regard Locke's arguments as weak and think that undue reliance thereon has weakened the cause of individualism in recent times. Pipes has written that Locke's work "marked a regression because it rested on the concept of [[Natural Law]]" rather than upon Harrington's sociological framework.

[[Hernando de Soto Polar|Hernando de Soto]] has argued that an essential characteristic of the capitalist market economy is the functioning state protection of property rights in a formal [[property system]] which records ownership and transactions. These property rights and the whole legal system of property make possible:
* Greater independence for individuals from local community arrangements to protect their assets
* Clear, provable, and protectable ownership
* The standardization and integration of property rules and property information in a country as a whole
* Increased trust arising from a greater certainty of punishment for cheating in economic transactions
* More formal and complex written statements of ownership that permit the more straightforward assumption of shared risk and ownership in companies, and insurance against the risk
* Greater availability of loans for new projects since more things can serve as collateral for the loans
* Easier access to and more reliable information regarding such things as credit history and the worth of assets
* Increased [[fungibility]], standardization, and transferability of statements documenting the ownership of property, which paves the way for structures such as national markets for companies and the easy transportation of property through complex networks of individuals and other entities
* Greater protection of biodiversity due to minimizing of [[shifting agriculture]] practices

According to de Soto, all of the above enhance [[economic growth]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/03/desoto.htm |title=Finance & Development, March 2001 – The Mystery of Capital |work=Finance, and Development – F&D |access-date=14 May 2015}}</ref> Academics have criticized the capitalist frame through which property is viewed pointing to the fact that commodifying property or land by assigning it monetary value takes away from the traditional cultural heritage, particularly from first nation inhabitants.<ref name= "ReferenceA">Kristen A. Carpenter, Sonia Katyal, and Angela Riley, 'In Defense of Property' [2009] 118 Yale L J 101, 101–117, 124–138</ref><ref>Margaret Jane Radin, Property and Personhood, 34 STAN. L. REV. 957, 1013-15 (1982)</ref> These academics point to the personal nature of property and its link to identity being irreconcilable with wealth creation that contemporary Western society subscribes to.<ref name=" ReferenceA"/>