Talk:Private property

I've added a definition section, and a significant section on the purpose of private property. This is my first attempt at creating what is substantially an entire article from whole cloth, and so I expect it can benefit from a great deal of constructive criticism. In particular, I'm working to develop citations, which are skeletal at best, at present. (Most of this is material I learned during the course of my own education in economics and the law--it's pretty fundamental stuff, and so not the kind you'd generally attribute to any particular source.)

I also deleted a couple of sentences that erroneously suggested that private property cannot be held by more than one person. In fact, there are several kinds of joint property recognized in Anglo-American law. I suspect the author meant to distinguish private ownership from, for example, nationalized property, which, in theory, is owned by the public at large, which, of course, is a valid distinction, but the statement as written was inaccurate. User:QBeam 3:45 EST, Nov. 19, 2007

Oops, I just realized that my cut-and-pasting didn't copy in the footnotes. I'm out of time at this minute, but I'll add them shortly...bear with me. User:QBeam 3:50 EST, Nov. 19, 2007

Private property = single owner

The definition for private property and ownership type, in American law, DOES state that only one person can absolutely own private property. Any other interpretation is not supported by the authorities.

If you wish to use another law system, please specify it.

--Jetgraphics 16:20, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Joint ownership is a well established aspect of American property law. It is generally divided into two categories: "joint tenancy" and "tenancy-in-common." The principle distinction between the two relates to the rights of the cotenants as against one another. It may be that you're use of the term "absolutely" is calculated to advert to that fact, since, in either case, the cotenants do have at least some duty to one another. That, however, does not render joint ownership something less than (or other than) private property. See, e.g., Joint Ownership and Alienability, International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 23, No. 1 (March 2003), pp. 75-100. Uswer:QBeam 4:58 (EST) Nov. 27, 2007

You are in error with respect to American law. "Joint ownership" never refers to private property. If I may direct your attention to the LEGAL DEFINITION, estate (real and personal property) is held with qualified ownership by two or more persons OR when the ownership is limited in any fashion. In contrast PRIVATE PROPERTY is absolutely owned by an individual. The U.S. constitution specifically protects private property ownership, while not extending any protection to estate. Similarly, state constitutions delegate taxing power over estate but do not refer to private property. (see Ad Valorem Taxation) As long as you fail to comprehend the distinction, you will mix apples and oranges.

--Jetgraphics 18:00, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Socialist entitlements

According to the Congressional Research Service, all entitlements are "gifts" from Congress. There are no property rights (absolute or qualified) in charity from the public treasury. It would be misleading to state otherwise.

--Jetgraphics 16:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Biblical source for absolute ownership

I've added this section to augment the importance of absolute ownership. Without a doubt, the average American is kept ignorant of the distinctions of absolute ownership. Substituting joint ownership into the definition for private property is not supported by secular nor sacred authorities.

In Genesis 26-28, man is given dominion over the earth, and all that is upon it. In law, dominion means absolute ownership or sovereignty. Since there can be no collective absolute ownership, the only valid conclusion is that individual men are endowed with the birthright to absolutely own themselves, the fruits of their labor, and that which they harmlessly acquire, including land.

DOMINION - Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. -Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a territory. - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.486

In other nations, where the people are subject citizens, they may be denied the right to absolutely own. For example, in the British Commonwealth, the monarch is the sovereign, and all property in private hands is held with qualified ownership. Failure to comply will result in loss of property.

--Jetgraphics 16:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)

As I noted above, you're simply mistaken to contend that joint ownership is not a well recognized principle in the American legal system. There was something of a controversy over the concept in the 19th Century, though mostly in Europe, which I believe was largely driven by the role of property ownership in maintaining social class distinctions. See, e.g., Private Common Property Rights, Elinor Ostram, Indiana University, 2000. There is also some academic criticism of joint ownership, because it reduces alienability (thereby increasing transaction costs, and impeding reallocation of property to it's most efficient use). Even at the height of the controversy, though, there has never been any legal bar against joint ownership.

The argument about "absolute ownership" is circular, and, in any event, contrary to the reality of property law. No ownership is "absolute." Much as it galls me, one's right to own property (in both Britain and the U.S.) is contingent upon the continued payment of property tax (in the case of real estate, anyway), avoiding illegal use of the property (in the case of personalty), and so forth. In short, you're venting about how you'd like things to be, rather than accurately describing how they really are. User:QBeam 5:32PM (EST) Nov. 27, 2007

You are mistaken. Joint ownership is recognized. But it is not recognized as ownership of private property. Private property IS a recognized legal principle in American law. Therefore, your conclusions are not supported by the authorities cited herein.

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels. - - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

First, do not assume European definitions of land ownership are in force and effect. European nations never recognized absolute ownership of property by commoners. Second, at the founding of the nation, the sovereignty of the people was recognized by the government. Third, sovereignty and property are inseparable. A sovereign without land has nothing to be sovereign over. Fourth, there are NO tax levies on private property. All ad valorem taxes are levied on estate NOT private property. I challenge you to produce ONE constitutional clause that delegates the power to tax private property in the U.S.A. Fifth, no state requires the recording of private property transactions. Only "real estate" transactions are recorded.

Assuming that "all land" is real estate is not supported by the legal definitions.

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another thing, for an estate in land is a time in 
land or land for a time. - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

Land can be absolutely owned as private property. OR Land can be held with qualified ownership as estate (real estate aka real property).

Failure to recognize the difference leads you to make erroneous conclusions. --Jetgraphics 18:06, 27 November 2007 (EST)

WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY?

DOMINION - Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. -Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a territory. - - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.486

SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly". New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.

SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested... Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.

WHO IS SOVEREIGN?

"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

"People are supreme, not the state." Waring v. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

These citations show that the servant government recognizes that American people are sovereign over government. And sovereignty and property are inseparable. A king without land is merely a traveling prince.

We can infer that for an individual to exercise his sovereign prerogatives, he must absolutely own his domain. That is why it is a common error to presume that joint ownership or any other form of collective ownership fits with "private property". In fact, any other form of ownership that is NOT absolute nor by an individual is NOT private property. --Jetgraphics 17:33, 19 November 2007 (EST)