46
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 38:
Line 38: + + +
Talk:Private property (view source)
Revision as of 22:32, November 27, 2007
, 22:32, November 27, 2007→Biblical source for absolute ownership
--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 16:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)
--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 16:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)
: As I noted above, you're simply mistaken to contend that joint ownership is not a well recognized principle in the American legal system. There was something of a controversy over the concept in the 19th Century, though mostly in Europe, which I believe was largely driven by the role of property ownership in maintaining social class distinctions. See, e.g., Private Common Property Rights, Elinor Ostram, Indiana University, 2000. There is also some academic criticism of joint ownership, because it reduces alienability (thereby increasing transaction costs, and impeding reallocation of property to it's most efficient use). Even at the height of the controversy, though, there has never been any legal bar against joint ownership.
: The argument about "absolute ownership" is circular, and, in any event, contrary to the reality of property law. No ownership is "absolute." Much as it galls me, one's right to own property (in both Britain and the U.S.) is contingent upon the continued payment of property tax (in the case of real estate, anyway), avoiding illegal use of the property (in the case of personalty), and so forth. In short, you're venting about how you'd like things to be, rather than accurately describing how they really are.
== WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY? ==
== WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY? ==