Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:  
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'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.
+
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
46

edits

Navigation menu