Your definition of property is a stretch.  Property is indeed a "thing" a
tangible object.  Ownership is the result of a transaction, a contract, and
if real property is registered in the form of a deed at the county Registry
of Deeds.  Ownership is not the result of a collective decision of an
organized society.  No decision is necessary.  Laws determining ownership
are virtually the same in all societies.  Social relations have nothing to
do with property or ownership.

I am confused, I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Bob Summers

>From: Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Property rights
>Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:26:11 -0600
>Marcia Karp wrote:
> >
> > I'm puzzled.   You want to limit the definition of "property."  I see
> > nothing in Tom's post that does that.
> >
>Property of course is a social relation -- not a "thing." Examine a
>building from here to eternity and you will never be able to determine
>its "ownership." That depends on a whole complex of social relations,
>including police, legistlation, etc etc etc. Put another way, there is
>no property of _any_ kind except through collective decsions of a whole
>organized society.
> > Marcia

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*.