Talk:Right to property

History section

Created article stub, needs extension, especially history section.[1]--SasiSasi (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias

I cannot imagine this article being more biased without being written by either John Locke or Karl Marx. It is is need of serious revision to present opinions as such rather than as facts. 130.160.155.183 (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I might have agreed with you, or might have disagreed, but I cannot take anyone seriously, who employs rhetoric as nonsensical as using “bias” and “facts” that way.
I know that in US media and layman discussions, this insanity is apparently the norm, but this is not supposed to be that specific nuthouse. First of all, there is no such thing as “neutral” views. Neural nets, like brains, are incapable of processing information in a neutral way. Their entire point is bias based on previous input. Secondly, even if they could, viewpoints are still nearly completely based on external input (“sources”) and not personal observation. And that input is already processed/mangled/filtered/edited/distorted. What people who say “biased” and “neutral” mean, is that something does not contain, or even conform to, their personal or society’s views/beliefs. And usually that their own view/belief’s opposite views/beliefs are, in their view, over-represented. Furthermore, “facts” is used by people who are utterly clueless about how reality and perception of reality (e.g. with regard to the scientific model) works. There is no such thing as “facts”. The best thing we have, is assumptions that make predictions, that our observations have taught us to be reliable enough, that we can keep them. And while these might be similar to several individuals, there are many factors that make that an impossibility in reality. These would be 1. the relativity of reality, paired with the Pauli exclusion principle, making it impossible for two individuals to have precisely the same forces acting upon them, or, in layman’s terms, experience precisely the same things; 2. everyone’s senses being slightly different and imperfect and distorting (hence e.g. sensory illusions); 3. the above mentioned “bias machine” that is our brains, modulating every input based on all past input, magnifying the relativity a thousandfold; and 4. the above mentioned situation, that nearly all input comes from other “sources” in a strongly pre-processed form anyway. This means that even the best six sigma peer-reviewed double-blind study is mere anecdotal hearsay to you, unless you actually check it against your own observations to six sigma. At this point, the futility of insisting on concepts like “facts”, should be pretty clear. — 87.78.162.93 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Also: You offered zero arguments to back up your statements. Hence if I disagreed, there would be nothing to refute in the first place. Since you effectively made no full arguments to begin with. You are hoping on the other side coming up with arguments, so you don’t have to, and so you can look for errors, shoot them down quickly, and keep you in control of the game. Sorry. Won’t happen. Arguments or GTFO. — 87.78.162.93 (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• openInvent.club cited the Articles UN as authority to give away Real Property; A law was passed making publishing invention ideas illegal to flout the law and go to court give right and proof of ownership of ___ property whether is is decided to be real [or REAL estate] or not. Now a psychiatrist has more power than a Judge. A Judge has less power than Modern Slave holders with oral commands they consider "orders" and binding the Americans to the land whilst ensuring criminals have a difficult time working to [never] pay of their debts to Society [grounds for indentured servitude if not Slavery as defined in California Penal Code 181] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7001:200:44EA:4BB0:2770:A417 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

property as relation or as thing

You first need to define property in this article. And not switch back and forth from one definition to another (a lot of writers get this confused, including the editor).

There are two definitions of the general concept of property (which is not the same thing as private property i.e. private, collective, communal, etc. are specific forms that the general concept property can take, even though in classical liberal texts, the general term property is mistakenly equated with private property).

Property can refer to a thing/object(s) possessed/owned. But in law and in logic, the general concept of property refers to relationships among and between people and things i.e. rights attached to ownership, specifically the right to control the use or benefit to which ownership is put. "Property denotes not material things but certain rights...A property right is a relation not between an owner and a thing, but between the owner and other individuals in reference to things" (Morris Cohen, American jurist cited in Clement, 1983, p.212).

So, property refers to CLAIMS, ENTITLEMENTS, RIGHTS to the use and disposal of things vis-a-vis other members of a social unit. That is not the same thing as referring to property as a thing. Private property, following a relationship definition, refers to exclusive claims, rights and entitlements to the use and disposal of things (essentially meaning the denial of a social relationship).

Moreover, it is worth noting that "the meaning of property is not constant. The actual institution, and the way people see it, and hence the meaning they give to the word, all change over time. The changes are related to changes in the purposes which society or the dominant classes in society expect the institution of property to serve" (1978, p.1). Macpherson has argued the use of the concept property as things and property as identical with private property can be traced historically to the period of the rise of the full capitalist market society (see Macpherson, 1978, sections 3, 4, 5). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

On Talk:Property rights (economics), I suggested to merge that article and this one. By the way, the best place for the merged article would IMHO be here. Bever (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

European definition self-contradicting.

Point 2 directly contradicts point 1. Since it cannot be both, either point 1 is nullified, or point 2 is not true. In practice, I guess point 1 is de-facto nullified, since there is nothing where point 2 cannot override it. This should be mentioned in a well-written way in the article. — 87.78.162.93 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

State Denial and Disparagement of Right to own property in violation of Ratified Consitution

Consider adding to main page: Although the Consitution stipulates that no state shall make or pass any law that denies or disparages constitutional rights. The right to Jury Trial is often denied especially in cases of Mental Incompetency. For example [not so]recent Clippers Owner lost the Right to own "Real" property under CA Penal Code 1368-70 Laws. Its self evident that in these matters the public has no democratic opinion and that a Psychiatrists Subjective opinion supercedes any Judicial Review. Also the spouse having demurred with a claim of Communal Property was also divested of the Right of Ownership for the Clippers team. The publicity in this Case focused on racial remarks and/or slurrs that were not protected under the rights governing Freedom of Speech.

My personal belief is that courtside showers could be profitable for sports illustrated. I feel that there is evidence for a case of Slander for the phrase "Mentally Incompetent" which divested the right to own real property. Althought the term real is not defined as intangible TEAM Intellecutal Property Rights explicitly. The Articles of UN give the right to give away real property; I believe this includes REAL ESTATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7001:200:44EA:4BB0:2770:A417 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)