One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights. A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. Private property rights, of course, make for the institution of commerce. If people trade goods and services, if they sell them, if they produce them, if they hoard them, if they save them, then they have to have some level of jurisdiction over them. (Encyclopedia of Philosophy) For example, the owner of an apartment with complete property rights to the apartment has the right to determine whether to rent it out and, if so, which tenant to rent to; to live in it himself; or to use it in any other peaceful way. That is the right to determine the use. If the owner rents out the apartment, he also has the right to all the rental income from the property. That is the right to the services of the resources (the rent). In addition, the owner of the property is allowed to determine the price at which he will sell his land, as long as someone is willing to pay the price asked. (Alchian) Moreover, private property rights are the baseline of gauging individual activity because they enable such action to occur. However, in some cases, individuals must take action to preserve the wellbeing of their property. For example, in 1996 John and Joesephine Bronczyk wanted the state of Minnesota to forbid outsiders to walk on their property, a property situated next to wetlands perceived to be “public waters.” The Bronczyks argued that either the state should exclude outsiders all together, or they should receive just compensation for their land being used... ... middle of paper ... ...plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/#EstSovAut>. 6. Machan, Tibor. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Right to Private Property []. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. . 7. Marlowe, Ann . "“Civilization and Its Enemies” by Lee Harris." Saloncom RSS. Salon, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. . 8. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, and Monica Di Gregorio.COLLECTIVEACTION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2004. Web. 9. Powell, Jim. "John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property." The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education. FEE, 1 Aug. 1996. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. . 10. Scott, Jim. Seeing like a state. New Haven: , 1998. Print.
Does the introduction of a system of registration of title remove the need for the law to recognise possessory or equitable interests in land? Why? Why not?
Franklin Jr. Mixon is a Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Economic Education at Columbus State University. In his work
Brue, S. L., Flynn, S. M., & McConnell, C. R. (2011).Economics principles, problems and policies. (19 ed.). New
21st Century Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 58-59. 163-172. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.
Kroon, George E. Macroeconomics The Easy Way. New York: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2007. Print.
25 Nov. 2013. “Economy.” CQ Researcher. 15 June 2013. Web.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Block, Walter. "A Critique of the Legal and Philosophical Case for Rent Control." Journal of Business Ethics 40.1 (2002): 75-90. ProQuest. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
...The Wizard Of Oz In Economics." Journal Of Economic Education 33.3 (2002): 254-264. Business Source Elite. Web. 7 Dec. 2013.
Critics may charge that by abolishing private property, the communist is instead eliminating the “groundwork of all personal freedom, activity, and independence.”(235) Standing in defense of communism, Marx states that wage labor does not really create property for the laborer. In fact, it only creates capital, which Marx defines as being a kind of property that works to exploit the worker rather than benefit him or her. (235) The worker works just to increase the wage of his boss, while his wage remains stagnant. Marx states that this capital in the modern bourgeoisie society is based on class antagonism, which makes it become a social power. Communists do not want to abolish property as right, but rather want to abolish the class character associated with property. Keeping capital private will continue to give the bourgeoisie the ability to have more power over the workers of the world. (236) By making capital public, it eliminates the class antagonism that is attached to that
Tragakes, E. (2012). Economics for the IB diploma (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
O'Sullivan, A., & Sheffrin, S. (2005). Economics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Sullivan, A., & Steven M., (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hal