OUTLINE: The Exclusion Criterion of Property: A Critique of Property Rights


positive definition of property:

to own an object: to be ABLE to exclude that object from others.

property: any object that is owned

this definition accounts for renting

property is a monopoly/monopsony using the exclusion criteria, at least it inherits a lot of its characteristics.

property is dependent upon how specifically you define the object

ex if someone steals something from you and they can further exclude you from it, a transfer of ownership takes place and it becomes the thiefs property

property rights is a normative definition of what property should be

normative claims are derived from well-defined objectives.

rights should be rejected because you are projecting your objectives onto others. if your objectives align there will be an mutual exchange/trade.

rights are a vestige of religious and government indoctrination.

rights are a claim or worse an entitlement, no claim is valid unless there is a ENFORCEABLE contract. you cant expect others to enforce your claim.  entitlements are associated with welfare programs of government or gods.

property rights the cost of excluding people from that object

people who believe in rights want to impose an outcome that is desirable for them. rights are just a projection of your self-interest on the rest of society

homesteading is inadequate. does not take into account the cost of exclusion/defending property or worse invokes an implicit contract for others to do it for you or vice versa

rights mean nothing in a two man room.

a normative definition of property should only be of concern when describing the terms of explicit contract.

you can reach a desirable outcome using positive analysis

with a positive definition you can apply simple game theory thought experiment once an objective (self interest) is applied

property will tend to flow to those who can best utilize it.

exclusion task. exclusion is a cost to owning property.  you must meet these costs and it cannot be delegated to others without an exchange of value (valid consideration for a contract). but even with a contract your ability to exclude will depend on if you can enforce the contract. that is why contracts are irrelevant because the criterion must be met regardless of a contract.

if it is a profitable you will do so or pay someone else to do it for you.

subcategories of property: assets and liabilities. profit and loss.

.one should seek a logically consistent positive definition of what property IS and apply analysis

contracts are irrelevant to property in the positive sense.  again a contract must be ENFORCEABLE meaning the burden of exclusion is still ultimately the current owner’s

if you fail in satisfying the criteria of excluding then it is not your property.

application to intellectual property (ideas not the laws)

rivalry dependent on how specifically defined. by specifically defining a non-rivalrous good you can make it rivalrous

an idea is difficult to exclude others from due to independent thought/discovery and dissemination, but you define it as the idea in your head it is by default excludable.

IP is only possible in the long run with government

distinction between thought and concept

an instance the the set its a part of.

a definition is an intersection of criteria which are sets.

** exclusion is not a passive act. the actor must be aware of the fact that he is excluding, or must have the intent to exclude.

property SHOULD go to the people who 1) dont have a better alternative measured in economic profit and 2) can utilize it best measured in nominal profit


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s