Property and Law

This seems to be a typical Property Law Classroom.

Some scholars are asserting, wrongly, that property is a "reified" concept, and therefore invalid. They define "reificiation" as treating an abstract concept as if it is real or concrete, when it is not. Given this definition, it is absolutely clear that property is not a reified concept. In fact, the concrete defintion of property is that an item of property is a thing for me. Moreover, property is also defined as my having control over thing, such that I can say that the thing is in my possession. Once I say that the thing is mine, it is then my property. The idea is that I have the right and the power to prevent others from taking my property, such as the shirt on my back, away from me. Moreover, once I assert that my shirt which is in my closet, when I am out and about, is still my shirt, then property begins to be a meaning or legal concept, starting with the idea of constructive possession of property. Thus, I can assert that the shirt is in my constructive possession, even though it is my closer miles away. Additionally, I can also say that my house is in my constructive possession, even thought I am miles away. Thus, I can begin to say that the property, which is my shirt, is in fact a legal relationship, between persons, and the state, with respect to some thing, tangible or intangible, such as my shirt or patent or copyright. Thus, we can see that, in fact, property is grounded in sense experience and logic, and thus is not reified, and in fact is epistemologically valid. Once we have established that property is valid, we can then see that contracts are valid. You see, if two people possess tangible personal property, such as their extra shirts, they can they trade them with each other in a barter contract. Of course, later on, I will be able to sell my shirt for money, in a contract, as such, and, in any event, we can see that the idea of a contract is epistemologically valid as grounded in concrete property. (C)Perpetual Copyright (2011) by Anthony J. Fejfar, and Anthony J. Faber, and Neothomism, P.C. (PA).

Property is Real or at Least Relatively Real

The materialist definition of Property is that Property is a physical thing like a house or a bicycle. Thus, we start with sense experience and then see that any physical, tangible object that I possess, where this can be verified by sense experience, that is, by positivism, is considered real property. Possession is based on the person having a certain amount of control over the tangible thing, such that the person has at least some ability to exclude others from taking the physical, tangible, from his or her possession. Thus, following Blackstone, Magna Charta, Grotius, and John Locke, a person has a right to use reasonable force to exclude others from trying to steal his property, that is, a person has a natural right to prevent others from wrongfully taking possession of the property that the first person has in his or her possession. Now, after awhile, the idea of constructive possession of property came about. Constructive possession of property is where a legal fiction is used to assert that a person possesses property even though the person is out of town, for example. So, if Joe travels to the village 5 miles away, Joe still has constructive possession of his house and his property therein, even though he is not physically present to defend his property as home. Additionally, once property right began to be recognized, people banded together to protect each other's property and property rights, and thus a legal system was formed. Thus, Sheriff's Law, the Law of Logic, prohibited Sopistry, and began to protect property rights, that is, the person's right to possession of some tangible, physical objects. At this point, we can see that "property" in a sense was no longer just the physical thing in itself, but instead became an intangible legal right. Thus, the Restatement of Property defines Property as "A legal relationship between persons with respect to some thing, tangible or intangible." Thus, property is is both physical and intangible, and the idea of intellectual property which is largely intangible was born. Thus, we can say that property is real, or at least relatively real, and therefore property is not a reified concept. Property starts with the concrete or physical and then moves to intangible aspects. Moreover, we can see that reification is itself an incoherent concept since reification is itself a reified concept. Additionally form property law we can reason to contract law, and then to other forms of law, using logical positivism.

(C)Perpetual Copyright (2011) by Anthony Fejfar and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)