What is Property?



The property, in the general sense, means the exclusive rights of a person on a set of things (personal property) or shared with others (joint ownership, co-ownership). The property also means the articles covered by this law. An individual has a property right on one thing. When an individual has the right to enjoy a thing exclusively, use, dispose of, or destroy, the individual has the right of ownership of this thing. According to Roman law, the right of ownership is traditionally separated into three rights:
 fructus: the right to the fruits,
 usus: the right to use,
 abusus: the right of that is to say, to modify, to yield to another, or to destroy in whole or in part.
The property, as well as the freedom of which it is a prerequisite, is inseparable from responsibility . The owner is responsible for their properties, especially in case of harm to others. It can also support various legal and contractual easements, often trivial (such as the requirement to pass the radio waves), but sometimes more restrictive (right of way).
Material property is the most intuitive: it reflects the fact that a thing can usually serve only one person at a time.
In French law, the property is divided into movable and immovable property. In Anglo-Saxon law ( common law ), there is a somewhat similar distinction between personal property (personal property) and Real Estate (real property).
Intellectual Property
Main article: intellectual property .
“Intellectual property” is a modern invention, contested by the Liberals in many of its aspects, which is a legal artifice of ownership of an immaterial thing; it enables people owners of a business license, a patent, a logo or a brand to protect the product of their intellectual work, including imposing potential users to use their rights ” property. ”
The natural property
Until the seventeenth century , the common opinion most prélibéraux authors is that ownership allows the fairest allocation of resources. Few would present it as a right inherent to human nature, but most – such as members of the School of Salamanca after Thomas Aquinas – consider that, while not requiring positive injunction this regard, the Natural Law authorizes the property. John Locke first formalize the notion of property presented as a natural right:
“Every man has a property in his own person. To this person has no right than himself. The work of his body and the work of his hands, we may say that they belong to it. All it takes the state in which nature had placed there has mixed his work and added something of its own, making it thereby his property meaning a quick house sale Scotland. As it was drawn from the common situation where nature had placed it because of this work something which excludes the right of other men. Indeed, this work being the undisputed property of the person who has executed, no other person can not have a law on which it is associated. ”
– John Locke , Second civil government of the Treaty
The right to property stems from the need for everyone to survive and thus to “take” (ownership) that exists in nature to ensure the survival. Then this is the job that allows to move from a situation of relative shortage to a surplus that can benefit others (hence the trade), and thereby legitimize the fact that a person has a particular property.
The natural property is not limited only to tangible property. For liberals, the property is a social phenomenon and not merely “physical”, from which flow behavior. A property right establishes what behaviors are legitimate or not. This may involve tangible goods or services. This natural right of ownership is then expressed from a legal point of view (which may be significantly different from the point of view of natural law ). As expressed Hernando de Soto :
“The property [legal] is not a material object that could be photographed or represented on a map. This is not a primary quality of goods, but the legal expression of economically significant consensus on the property. The law is the instrument that embodies the fixed and capital (…). The property is composed of the goods themselves, but a consensus among citizens on how to hold them, use them and trade them. ”
– Hernando de Soto , The Mystery of Capital
However, the natural property, for the Liberals, can not otherwise be subject to arbitrary or summary is the legal property, which sees the property as a right to every citizen to enjoy and dispose of the portion of property that is guaranteed to him by law, because the law can also be an instrument of plunder
Proudhon , the anarcho-individualists and collectivists certain defined a separate possession of the property (the right) and possession in the legal sense (does). This is private property of all that is not a means of production (eg, personal objects). For liberals and libertarians, this distinction is artificial, it is only intended to remove the concept of business , seen as a place of oppression.
The property as a social convention
For Rousseau , the property is only a social convention because “the state is master of all property” of its members under the social contract , and “the right of each individual to his own fund is subject to the right throughout the community. ”
Similarly Benjamin Constant says that “property is not developed prior to society, because without the association giving it a guarantee, it would only be the right of the first occupant, in other words, the right of force dropoff window:
The property is nothing but a social convention; but we recognize that for such, it does not follow that we envisioned as less sacred, less inviolable, less necessary, as writers who adopt another system.
The property, as social convention, is competent and within the jurisdiction of the company. (Policy Principles, Chapter XV: Of the inviolability of property)
But for him an advanced society can not exist without private property indispensable condition for the division of labor . His apology for the property is actually utilitarian and not natural law. It shows all the disadvantages of the attacks made on the property, including the fact that a trespass led to an attack on freedom.
Libertarians note that the only justifications property defined as “social convention” are based ultimately on the law of the jungle : the property is a convention that because the “company” (strongest in reality moment, be it a state, a dictator or even any criminal) could confiscate arbitrarily. For them, there is no basis to deprive others of honestly acquired property (that is to say, acquired without aggression towards others); , such arbitrariness leads to institutionalized violence and ultimately to the destruction of life in society.
Ayn Rand ridicules the concept of property as a social convention by the mouth of one of his characters:
The right to property is completely irrational. It does not have anything as long as we do not take you. And the people may take you at any time. And if it can, why should he deprive? (Strike , p. 145)
Property oneself
Main article: self-ownership .
The state is the enemy of the property
The state , far from being the guarantor, is the first enemy of the property, or that the confiscated for his own benefit or that destroys:
 Taxes , taxes, forced contributions;
 expropriation on the grounds of public interest ;
 embezzlement of public funds, corruption , bribery, prevarication, embezzlement;
 regulations on “public” places, private reality (and open to a lot of people), flouting the owner’s rights
 establishment of monopolies law that charge high prices forced consumers;
 the inflation allows the state, which has the weapon of money creation , not to pay its debts;
 the wars undertaken by the State an opportunity destruction of private property, requisitions, raids on the property and wealth of the enemy (the French public museums still show plenty).
The ideology state also destroys the concept of ownership in several ways:
 suggesting that all property ultimately belongs to the state (for example, the notion of ” gift tax “to designate a tax cut: do not take it by force would amount to a gift);
 suggesting that any proprietary rights is only a state concession, or nation, or people, who can be resumed at any time. Ayn Rand expressed this view by the mouth of the one of his characters: “The right to property is perfectly irrational can not have something as long as you do not take the people Or you can take it at any time if he can, why s… ‘as it would deny? “(Strike, p. 145);
 constant state intervention, theorized in many ways (theory of public goods , the theory of externalities …) are pretexts for destruction of property.
Max Stirner recalls the ownership is in fact more or less visible, the law of the jungle :
“The only force decides to property; State (whether the state of the bourgeois, beggars or quite simply men) are only strong, is also the sole owner; Me, the One, I have nothing, I’m just a farmer on state land, I am a vassal, and therefore a servant. Under the domination of the state, one is not to Me. (…) To say that the state did not arbitrarily strips the individual of what the individual wishes of the State simply to say that the state does not fly itself. One who is a “state I”, that is to say, a good citizen or a good subject, enjoys his stronghold safely, but he enjoys it like me state, not as clean Me, as individual. ”
Similarly, the Nobel Prize winning economist Douglass North has private property rights as rights that are granted by the State to increase its revenues. Governments and officials conceive of property rights to support their interest.
Also, some economists argue that private property rights must be put in place because of the inefficiency of the market and the existence of transaction costs. These same economists (Harold Demsetz [1] , D. Bruce Johnsen [2] , Steven Cheung [3] , Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill [4] and John R. Umbeck [5] ) promote “building” market institutions in order to bring out the property rights. So they attach to different governments and officials the right to design and use of property rights that will serve their own interests.
In fact, property rights exist outside the state recognition. If they can not emerge, it is because that State is no interest.