Property and Ideals: Yeoman and Individual Values of Ownership.
Property and Ideals: Yeoman and Individual values of ownership.
Lopez, Margarita Maria.
Facultad de Relaciones Internacionales. Universidad del Rosario.
Bogotá DC, Colombia.
Author Notes
There were no financial affiliations related to the essay, as well as were not any biased work or interests during the writing period.
Contact Information: lopezp.margarita@urosario.edu.co
Property and Ideals: Yeoman and Individual values of ownership.
About Property and Ownership
Modern concept of property differs greatly from the concept of Property that existed during much of the 18th century. Modern conceptions of property are based solely upon the assumption of a legal and rightful ownership which depends mostly on a concept which can be rather elusive to grasp regardless of how sharp law making has become, also, the wide spectrum of properties such as material properties, intellectual properties, and a wide variety of items which can be also be owned, makes the concept of property and rightful ownership, a rather hard idea to grasp for the concept itself not only allows the owner to ‘’own’’ the thing but also to ‘’use it’’ on whatever way the owner might want. Breaky (2011) defines this concept by explaining that Exasperated at the strange forms of property thrown up as evidence by the Bundle Theorists, they returned to basics and took as their paradigm the relation an owner has to a physical resource archetypically, a chattel. The weight of these arguments established the current orthodoxy of the concept of Ownership of a Thing. Each of these theorists envisaged the standard case of property (and certainly the limit case of property) as involving:
1. The duty of non-owners to exclude themselves from the resource; (Penner, J. 1996)
2. The owners’ open-ended capacities to use the resource; (Penner, J. 1996)
3. Powers to alienate one’s ownership of the resource. (Penner, J. 1996)
Breaky’s engagement to this idea is rather important defining the value
Lopez, Margarita Maria.
Facultad de Relaciones Internacionales. Universidad del Rosario.
Bogotá DC, Colombia.
Author Notes
There were no financial affiliations related to the essay, as well as were not any biased work or interests during the writing period.
Contact Information: lopezp.margarita@urosario.edu.co
Property and Ideals: Yeoman and Individual values of ownership.
About Property and Ownership
Modern concept of property differs greatly from the concept of Property that existed during much of the 18th century. Modern conceptions of property are based solely upon the assumption of a legal and rightful ownership which depends mostly on a concept which can be rather elusive to grasp regardless of how sharp law making has become, also, the wide spectrum of properties such as material properties, intellectual properties, and a wide variety of items which can be also be owned, makes the concept of property and rightful ownership, a rather hard idea to grasp for the concept itself not only allows the owner to ‘’own’’ the thing but also to ‘’use it’’ on whatever way the owner might want. Breaky (2011) defines this concept by explaining that Exasperated at the strange forms of property thrown up as evidence by the Bundle Theorists, they returned to basics and took as their paradigm the relation an owner has to a physical resource archetypically, a chattel. The weight of these arguments established the current orthodoxy of the concept of Ownership of a Thing. Each of these theorists envisaged the standard case of property (and certainly the limit case of property) as involving:
1. The duty of non-owners to exclude themselves from the resource; (Penner, J. 1996)
2. The owners’ open-ended capacities to use the resource; (Penner, J. 1996)
3. Powers to alienate one’s ownership of the resource. (Penner, J. 1996)
Breaky’s engagement to this idea is rather important defining the value
References: Breaky, Hugh. 2011. Two Concepts of Property: Ownership of Things and Property in Activities. Crèvecoeur, Hector St. John de. 1782. Letters from an American Farmer. 1782; repr. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1957), 51. Harris, James. 1996. Property and Justice. Oxford: OUP, 1996. 24-25, 31. Jefferson, T. 1787. Notes on the State of Virginia. 1787; repr., Richmond, VA: J. W. Randolph, 1853, Pg 176. Penner, J. 1996. The ‘Bundle of Rights’ Picture of Property UCLA Law Rev.43 (1996): 711- 820, 714, 739; Penner, J. 1997. The Idea of Property in Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997 2-3, 59; Underkuffler, Laura. On Property: An essay. 2002. The Yale Law Journal. Vol 100: 127. Waldron, J. 1985. What Is Private Property?. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 5(1985): 313-49, 331, 34