Editing Property law (section)

==Theory==
The word ''property'', in everyday usage, refers to an object (or objects) owned by a person—a car, a book, or a cellphone—and the relationship the person has to it.<ref>Ann Marie Sullivan, Cultural Heritage & New Media: A Future for the Past, 15 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 604 (2016) https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1392&context=ripl {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200405095657/https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1392&context=ripl |date=2020-04-05 }}</ref> In law, the concept acquires a more nuanced rendering. Factors to consider include the nature of the object, the relationship between the person and the object, the relationship between a number of people in relation to the object, and how the object is regarded within the prevailing political system. Most broadly and concisely, property in the legal sense refers to the rights of people in or over certain objects or things.<ref>Badenhorst, PJ, Juanita M. Pienaar, and Hanri Mostert. ''Silberberg and Schoeman's The Law of Property''. 5th Edition. Durban: LexisNexis/Butterworths, 2006, p. 9.</ref>

Non-legally recognized or documented property rights are known as informal property rights.  These informal property rights are non-codified or documented, but recognized among local residents to varying degrees.

=== Justifications and drawbacks of property rights ===
In capitalist societies with market economies, much of property is owned privately by persons or associations and not the government. Five general justifications have been given on [[private property]] rights:<ref name=":0" />

# Private property is an efficient way to manage resources in a decentralized basis, allowing expertise and specialization to develop with regard to the property.
# Private property is a powerful incentive for owners to put it to productive use, because they stand to gain in the investment.
# Private property allows exchanges and modifications.
# Private property is an important source of individual autonomy, giving individuals independence and identity distinct from others.
# Private property, being dispersed, allows individuals to exercise freedom, against others or against the government.

Arguments in favor of limiting private property rights have also been raised:<ref>{{Cite book|title=Property, mainstream and critical positions|date=1978|publisher=University of Toronto Press|others=Macpherson, C. B. (Crawford Brough), 1911-1987.|isbn=0-8020-2305-3|location=Toronto|oclc=3706603}}</ref><ref name=":0" />

# Private property can be used in a way that is harmful to others, such as a factory owner causing loud noises in nearby neighborhoods. In economics, this is known as a [[Externality|negative externality]]. [[Nuisance]] laws and government regulations (such as [[zoning]]) have been used to limit an owners' right to use the property in certain ways.
# Property can lead to [[Monopoly|monopolies]], giving the owner the power to unfairly extract advantages from others. Because of this, there are laws on [[Competition law|competition]] and antitrust.
# Property can lead to the commodification of certain domains which people would prefer not to be commodified, such as social relations.
# Private property gives individuals power, which can exacerbate over time and lead to too much inequality within a society. The propensity for inequality is justification of [[Redistribution of income and wealth|wealth redistribution]].

===Natural rights and property===
In his ''[[Two Treatises of Government|Second Treatise on Government]]'', English philosopher [[John Locke]] asserted the right of an individual to own one part of the world, when, according to the [[Bible]], God gave the world to all humanity in common.<ref>{{Cite book|author=Locke, John|title=Second treatise of government|date=1980|publisher=Hackett Pub. Co|others=Macpherson, C. B. (Crawford Brough), 1911-1987.|isbn=0-915144-93-X|edition=1st|location=Indianapolis, Ind.|oclc=6278220}}</ref> He claimed that although persons belong to God, they own the fruits of their labor. When a person works, that labor enters into the object. Thus, the object becomes the property of that person. However, Locke conditioned property on the [[Lockean proviso]], that is, "there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".

[[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]] undertook a survey of the philosophical grounds of American property law in 1790 and 1791. He proceeds from two premises: "Every crime includes an injury: every injury includes a violation of a right." (Lectures III, ii.) The government's role in protecting property depends upon an idea of right. Wilson believes that "man has a [[Natural rights and legal rights|natural right]] to his property, to his character, to liberty, and to safety."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/of-the-natural-rights-of-individuals/|title=Of the Natural Rights of Individuals {{!}} Teaching American History|website=teachingamericanhistory.org|language=en|access-date=2018-03-24|archive-date=2018-07-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180702150821/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/of-the-natural-rights-of-individuals/|url-status=live}}</ref> He also indicates that "the primary and principal object in the institution of government... was... to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights".<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XeexAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA192 |title=The Founders on God and Government|last1=Dreisbach|first1=Daniel L.|last2=Hall|first2=Mark D.|last3=Morrison|first3=Jeffry H.|date=2004-10-08|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers|isbn=9780742580466|language=en}}</ref>

Wilson states that: "Property is the right or lawful power, which a person has to a thing." He then divides the right into three degrees: possession, the lowest; possession and use; and, possession, use, and disposition – the highest. Further, he states: "Useful and skillful industry is the soul of an active life. But industry should have her just reward. That reward is property, for of useful and active industry, property is the natural result." From this simple reasoning he is able to present the conclusion that exclusive, as opposed to communal property, is to be preferred. Wilson does, however, give a survey of communal property arrangements in history, not only in colonial [[Virginia]] but also ancient [[Sparta]].

=== Property rights ===
There are two main views on the right to property, the traditional view and the [[bundle of rights]] view.<ref>Henry E. Smith, ''Exclusion Versus Governance: Two Strategies for Delineating Property Rights'', 31 J. Legal Stud. S453 (2002).</ref> The traditionalists believe that there is a core, inherent meaning in the concept of property, while the bundle of rights view states that the property owner only has bundle of permissible uses over the property.<ref name=":0" /> The two views exist on a spectrum and the difference may be a matter of focus and emphasis.<ref name=":0" />

[[William Blackstone]], in his ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]],'' wrote that the essential core of property is the right to exclude.<ref>{{Cite book|author=Blackstone, William|title=Commentaries on the laws of England, volume 2 : of the rights of things (1766)|date=14 July 2015|isbn=978-0-226-16294-2|location=Chicago|oclc=913869367}}</ref> That is, the owner of property must be able to exclude others from the thing in question, even though the right to exclude is subject to limitations.<ref>{{Cite book|author=Penner, J. E. (James E.)|title=The idea of property in law|date=1997|publisher=Clarendon Press|isbn=0-19-826029-6|location=Oxford|oclc=35620409}}</ref> By implication, the owner can use the thing, unless another restriction, such as zoning law, prevents it.<ref name=":0" /> Other traditionalists argue that three main rights define property: the right to exclusion, use and transfer.<ref>{{Cite book|author=Epstein, Richard Allen|title=Takings : private property and the power of eminent domain|date=1985|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=0-674-86728-9|location=Cambridge, Mass.|oclc=12079263}}</ref>

An alternative view of property, favored by [[Legal realism|legal realists]], is that property simply denotes a [[bundle of rights]] defined by law and social policy.<ref name=":0" /> Which rights are included in the bundle known as property rights, and which bundles are preferred to which others, is simply a matter of policy.<ref name=":0" /> Therefore, a government can prevent the building of a factory on a piece of land, through zoning law or criminal law, without damaging the concept of property.<ref name=":0" /> The "bundle of rights" view was prominent in academia in the 20th century and remains influential today in American law.<ref name=":0" />