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)

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)