Still looking for deals on Property ?
Find our amazing Property offers at our top source site today where we have compared Property for you.
ask.com

About Property

Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights. Important types of property include [realty] (land), [personal property] (other physical possessions), and [intellectual property] (rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.). A [right] of [ownership] is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit, whether to use or not use, exclude others from using, or to transfer ownership. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from [Convention (norm)]. Others find origins for them in [morality] or [natural law].

Use of the term Various scholarly communities (e.g., [law], [economics], [anthropology], [sociology]) may treat the concept more systematically, but definitions vary within and between fields. Scholars in the social sciences frequently conceive of property as a bundle of rights. They stress that property is not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things.

[Public property] is any property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community. [Private property] is any property that is not public property. Private property may be under the control of a single individual or by a group of individuals collectively.Understanding Principles of Politics and the State, by John Schrems, PageFree Publishing (2004), page 234 Some philosophers like Karl Marx use it to describe a social relationship between those who sell their labor power and those who buy it.

General characteristics Modern property rights conceive of ownership and possession as belonging to legal individuals, even if the legal individual is not a real person. Corporations, for example, have legal rights similar to American citizens, including many of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the corporation is a [juristic person] or artificial legal entity, which some refer to as "corporate personhood".

Property rights are protected in the current laws of states usually found in the form of a [Constitution] or a [Bill of Rights]. The fifth and the fourteenth amendment to the [United States constitution], for example, provides explicitly for the protection of private property:

The Fifth Amendment states:

Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fourteenth Amendment states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Protection is also found in the United Nations [Universal Declaration of Human Rights], Article 17, and in the French [Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen], Article XVII, and in the [European Convention on Human Rights] (ECHR), Protocol 1.

Property is usually thought of in terms of a [bundle of rights] as defined and protected by the local [sovereignty]. Ownership, however, does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. If ownership gave supreme authority it would be [sovereignty], not ownership. These are two different concepts.

Traditional principles of property rights includes:

[control (sociology)] of the [use] of the property

the right to any benefit from the property (examples: [Mineral rights] and [Economic rent])

a right to [transfer] or [sell] the property

a right to [exclusive right] others from the property.

Traditional property rights do not include:

uses that unreasonably interfere with the property rights of another private party (the right of quiet enjoyment). [Nuisance

uses that unreasonably interfere with public property rights, including uses that interfere with public health, safety, peace or convenience. [Public Nuisance], [Police Power

Legal systems have evolved to cover the transactions and disputes which arise over the possession, use, transfer and disposal of property, most particularly involving [contracts]. [Positive law] defines such rights, and a [judiciary] is used to adjudicate and to enforce.

In his classic text, "The Common Law", [Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.] describes property as having two fundamental aspects. The first is possession, which can be defined as control over a resource based on the practical inability of another to contradict the ends of the possessor. The second is title, which is the expectation that others will recognize rights to control resource, even when it is not in possession. He elaborates the differences between these two concepts, and proposes a history of how they came to be attached to individuals, as opposed to families or entities such as the church.

According to [Adam Smith], the expectation of profit from "improving one's stock of capital" rests on private property rights, and the belief that property rights encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate [wealth], and efficiently allocate [factors of production] based on the operation of the market is central to [capitalism]. From this evolved the modern conception of property as a right which is enforced by positive law, in the expectation that this would produce more wealth and better standards of living.

[Classical liberalism], [Libertarianism], and related traditions

: "Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property." ([Ayn Rand], [Atlas Shrugged])

Most thinkers from these traditions subscribe to the [labor theory of property]. They hold that you own your own life, and it follows that you must own the products of that life, and that those products can be traded in free exchange with others.

: "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." ([John Locke], [Second Treatise on Civil Government])

: "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." ([Frédéric Bastiat], [The Law (1849 book)])

: "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." ([John Locke], Second Treatise on Civil Government)

[Socialism]'s fundamental principles are centered on a critique of this concept, stating, among other things, that the cost of defending property is higher than the returns from private property ownership, and that even when property rights encourage the property-holder to develop his property, generate wealth, etc., he will only do so for his own benefit, which may not coincide with the benefit of other people or society at large

[Libertarian socialism] generally accepts property rights, but with a short abandonment time period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else he loses ownership rights. This is usually referred to as "possession property" or "[usufruct]." Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers own the machines they work with.

[Communism] argues that only collective ownership of the [means of production] through a [polity] (though not necessarily a state) will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore private property (which in communist theory is limited to [capital (economics)]) should be abolished.Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private property is inherently illegitimate. This argument is centered mainly on the idea that the creation of private property will always benefit one [Social class] over another, giving way to domination through the use of this private property. Communists are naturally not opposed to personal property which is "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned" ([Communist Manifesto]), by members of the [proletariat].

Not every [person], or [entity], with an interest in a given piece of property may be able to exercise all of the rights mentioned a few paragraphs above. For example, as a [lessee] of a particular piece of property, you may not sell the property, because the tenant is only in possession, and does not have title to transfer. Similarly, while you are a lessee the [owner] cannot use his or her [right] to exclude to keep you from the property. (Or, if he or she does you may perhaps be entitled to stop paying rent or perhaps sue to regain access.)

Further, property may be held in a number of forms, e.g. [joint ownership], [community property], [sole ownership], [lease], etc. These different types of ownership may complicate an owner's [ability] to exercise his or her rights unilaterally. For example if two people own a single piece of land as joint tenants, then depending on the law in the [jurisdiction], each may have limited recourse for the actions of the other. For example, one of the owners might sell his or her [interest] in the property to a stranger that the other owner does not particularly like.

Theories of property A [natural rights] definition of property rights was advanced by [John Locke]. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes one’s labor with nature, one gains ownership of that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others".

Anthropology studies the diverse systems of ownership, rights of use and transfer, and possessionHann, Chris A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism Socio-Economic Review, Volume 5, Number 2, April 2007, pp. 287-318(32) under the term "theories of property". Western legal theory is based, as mentioned, on the owner of property being a legal individual. However, not all property systems are founded on this basis.

In every culture studied ownership and possession are the subject of custom and regulation, and "law" where the term can meaningfully be applied. Many tribal cultures balance individual ownership with the laws of collective groups: tribes, families, associations and nations. For example the 1839 Cherokee Constitution frames the issue in these terms:

Sec. 2. The lands of the Cherokee Nation shall remain common property; but the improvements made thereon, and in the possession of the citizens respectively who made, or may rightfully be in possession of them: Provided, that the citizens of the Nation possessing exclusive and indefeasible right to their improvements, as expressed in this article, shall possess no right or power to dispose of their improvements, in any manner whatever, to the United States, individual States, or to individual citizens thereof; and that, whenever any citizen shall remove with his effects out of the limits of this Nation, and become a citizen of any other government, all his rights and privileges as a citizen of this Nation shall cease: Provided, nevertheless, That the National Council shall have power to re-admit, by law, to all the rights of citizenship, any such person or persons who may, at any time, desire to return to the Nation, on memorializing the National Council for such readmission.

Communal property systems describe ownership as belonging to the entire social and political unit, while corporate systems describe ownership as being attached to an identifiable group with an identifiable responsible individual. The Roman property law was based on such a corporate system.

Different societies may have different theories of property for differing types of ownership. [Pauline Peters] argued that property systems are not isolable from the social fabric, and notions of property may not be stated as such, but instead may be framed in negative terms: for example the taboo system among Polynesian peoples.

Property in philosophy In [medieval] and [Renaissance] [Europe] the term "property" essentially referred to land. Much rethinking was necessary in order for land to come to be regarded as only a special case of the property genus. This rethinking was inspired by at least three broad features of early modern Europe: the surge of commerce, the breakdown of efforts to prohibit [interest] (so-called "[usury]"), and the development of centralized national [monarchy].

Ancient philosophy [Urukagina], the king of the [Sumer]ian city-state [Lagash], established the first laws that forbade compelling the sale of property. The [Cyrus cylinder] of [Cyrus the Great], founder of the [Achaemenid Empire] [Persian Empire], documents the protection of property rights.Arthur Henry Robertson, John Graham Merrills (1996). Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights. [Manchester University Press]. ISBN 0719049237.

The Ten Commandments shown in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 stated that the Israelites were not to steal. These texts, written in approximately 1400 B.C., were an early protection of private property.

[Aristotle], in Politics, advocates "private property." In one of the first known expositions of [tragedy of the commons] he says, "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual." In addition, he says when property is common there are natural problems that arise due to differences in labor: "If they do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much. But indeed there is always a difficulty in men living together and having all human relations in common, but especially in their having common property." ( Politics, 1261b34)

Pre-industrial English philosophy [Thomas Hobbes] 1600s

The principal writings of [Thomas Hobbes] appeared between 1640 and [1651]—during and immediately following the war between forces loyal to King [Charles I of England] and those loyal to [Parliament]. In his own words, Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of [Cicero]. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? In that unsettled time and place it perhaps was natural that he would conclude: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such.

[James Harrington] 1600s

A contemporary of Hobbes, [James Harrington], reacted differently to the same tumult; he considered property natural but not inevitable. The author of [Oceana], he may have been the first political theorist to postulate that political power is a consequence, not the cause, of the distribution of property. He said that the worst possible situation is one in which the commoners have half a nation's property, with crown and nobility holding the other half—a circumstance fraught with instability and violence. A much better situation (a stable republic) will exist once the commoners own most property, he suggested.

In later years, the ranks of Harrington's admirers would include American revolutionary and founder [John Adams].

[Robert Filmer] 1600s

Another member of the Hobbes/Harrington generation, Sir [Robert Filmer], reached conclusions much like Hobbes', but through [Biblical] [exegesis]. Filmer said that the institution of kingship is analogous to that of fatherhood, that subjects are but children, whether obedient or unruly, and that property rights are akin to the household goods that a father may dole out among his children—his to take back and dispose of according to his pleasure.

[John Locke] 1600s

In the following generation, [John Locke] sought to answer Filmer, creating a rationale for a balanced [constitution] in which the monarch would have a part to play, but not an overwhelming part. Since Filmer's views essentially require that the [Stuart] family be uniquely descended from the [patriarchs] of the [Bible], and since even in the late [seventeenth century] that was a difficult view to uphold, Locke attacked Filmer's views in his [First Treatise on Civil Government], freeing him to set out his own views in the [Second Treatise on Civil Government]. Therein, Locke imagined a pre-social world, the unhappy residents of which create a [social contract]. They would, he allowed, create a [monarchy], but its task would be to execute the will of an elected legislature.

"To this end" he wrote, meaning the end of their own long life and peace, "it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the [legislative power] into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the [state of nature]."

Even when it keeps to proper legislative form, though, Locke held that there are limits to what a government established by such a contract might rightly do.

"It cannot be supposed that hypothetical contractors they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases..."

Note that both "persons and estates" are to be protected from the arbitrary power of any magistrate, inclusive of the "power and will of a legislator." In Lockean terms, depredations against an estate are just as plausible a justification for resistance and revolution as are those against persons. In neither case are subjects required to allow themselves to become prey.

To explain the ownership of property Locke advanced a [labor theory of property].

[William Blackstone] 1700s

In the [1760s], [William Blackstone] sought to codify the English [common law]. In his famous [Commentaries on the Laws of England] he wrote that "every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether produced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly is a degree of tyranny."

How should such tyranny be prevented or resisted? Through property rights, Blackstone thought, which is why he emphasized that indemnification must be awarded a non-consenting owner whose property is taken by [eminent domain], and that a property owner is protected against physical invasion of his property by the laws of [trespass] and [nuisance]. Indeed, he wrote that a landowner is free to kill any stranger on his property between dusk and dawn, even an agent of the King, since it isn't reasonable to expect him to recognize the King's agents in the dark.

[David Hume] 1700s

In contrast to the figures discussed in this section thus far, [David Hume] lived a relatively quiet life that had settled down to a relatively stable social and political structure. He lived the life of a solitary writer until 1763 when, at 52 years of age, he went off to [Paris] to work at the British embassy.

In contrast, one might think, to his outrage-generating works on [religion] and his skeptical views in [epistemology], Hume's views on law and property were quite conservative.

He did not believe in hypothetical contracts, or in the love of mankind in general, and sought to ground politics upon actual human beings as one knows them. "In general," he wrote, "it may be affirmed that there is no such passion in human mind, as the love of mankind, merely as such, independent of personal qualities, or services, or of relation to ourselves." Existing customs should not lightly be disregarded, because they have come to be what they are as a result of human nature. With this endorsement of custom comes an endorsement of existing governments, because he conceived of the two as complementary: "A regard for [liberty], though a laudable passion, ought commonly to be subordinate to a reverence for established [government]."

These views led to a view on property rights that might today be described as [legal positivism]. There are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them. He offered some practical home-spun advice on the general subject, though, as when he referred to [avarice] as "the spur of [industry]," and expressed concern about excessive levels of taxation, which "destroy industry, by engendering despair."

Critique and response By the mid 19th century, the industrial revolution had transformed England and had begun in France. The established conception of what constitutes property expanded beyond land to encompass scarce goods in general. In France, the revolution of the 1790s had led to large-scale confiscation of land formerly owned by church and king. The restoration of the monarchy led to claims by those dispossessed to have their former lands returned. Furthermore, the [labor theory of value] popularized by [classical economics] such as [Adam Smith] and [David Ricardo] were utilized by a new ideology called [socialism] to critique the relations of property to other economic issues, such as profit, rent, interest, and wage-labor. Thus, property was no longer an esoteric philosophical question, but a political issue of substantial concern.

Charles Comte - legitimate origin of property

Charles Comte, in Traité de la propriété (1834), attempted to justify the legitimacy of private property in response to the [Bourbon Dynasty, Restored]. According to David Hart, Comte had three main points: "firstly, that interference by the state over the centuries in property ownership has had dire consequences for justice as well as for economic productivity; secondly, that property is legitimate when it emerges in such a way as not to harm anyone; and thirdly, that historically some, but by no means all, property which has evolved has done so legitimately, with the implication that the present distribution of property is a complex mixture of legitimately and illegitimately held titles." ( The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer

Comte, as Proudhon would later do, rejected Roman legal tradition with its toleration of slavery. He posited a communal "national" property consisting of non-scarce goods, such as land in ancient hunter-gatherer societies. Since agriculture was so much more efficient than hunting and gathering, private property appropriated by someone for farming left remaining hunter-gatherers with more land per person, and hence did not harm them. Thus this type of land appropriation did not violate the [Lockean proviso] - there was "still enough, and as good left." Comte's analysis would be used by later theorists in response to the socialist critique on property.

[Pierre Proudhon] - property is theft

In his treatise [What is Property?](1849), Proudhon answers with "[Property is theft!]" In natural resources, he sees two conceivable types of property, de jure property and de facto property, and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon's fundamental premise is that equality of condition is the essence of justice. "By this method of investigation, we soon see that every argument which has been invented in behalf of property, whatever it may be, always and of necessity leads to equality; that is, to the negation of property." But unlike the statist socialists of his time, Proudhon's solution is not to give each person an equal amount of property, but to deny the validity of legal property in natural resources altogether.

His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property (usufruct) is more nuanced. He asserts that land itself cannot be property, yet it should be held by individual possessors as stewards of mankind with the product of labor being the property of the producer. Like most theorists of his time, both capitalist and socialist, he assumed the [labor theory of value] to be correct. Thus, Proudhon reasoned, any wealth gained without labor was stolen from those who labored to create that wealth. Even a voluntary contract to surrender the product of labor to an employer was theft, according to Proudhon, since the controller of natural resources had no moral right to charge others for the use of that which he did not labor to create and therefore did not own.

Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Bakunin who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like Marx.

Frédéric Bastiat - property is value

Bastiat's main treatise on property can be found in chapter 8 of his book Economic Harmonies (1850). In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services."

Strongly disputing Proudhon's equality-based argument, Bastiat theorizes that, as a result of technological progress and the division of labor, the stock of communal wealth increases over time; that the hours of work an unskilled laborer expends to buy e.g. 100 liters of wheat decreases over time, thus amounting to "gratis" satisfaction. Thus, private property continually destroys itself, becoming transformed into communal wealth. The increasing proportion of communal wealth to private property results in a tendency toward equality of mankind. "Since the human race started from the point of greatest poverty, that is, from the point where there were the most obstacles to be overcome, it is clear that all that has been gained from one era to the next has been due to the spirit of property."

This transformation of private property into the communal domain, Bastiat points out, does not imply that private property will ever totally disappear. This is because man, as he progresses, continually invents new and more sophisticated needs and desires.

Contemporary views Among contemporary political thinkers who believe that human individuals enjoy rights to own property and to enter into contracts, there are two views about John Locke. On the one hand there are ardent Locke admirers, such as [William Harold Hutt] (1956), who praised Locke for laying down the "quintessence of individualism." On the other hand, there are those such as [Richard Pipes] who think that Locke's arguments are weak, and that undue reliance thereon has weakened the cause of individualism in recent times. Pipes has written that Locke's work "marked a regression because it rested on the concept of [Natural Law]" rather than upon Harrington's sociological framework.

[Hernando de Soto (economist)] has argued that an important characteristic of capitalist market economy is the functioning state protection of property rights in a formal property system where ownership and transactions are clearly recorded. These property rights and the whole formal system of property make possible:

Greater independence for individuals from local community arrangements to protect their assets;
Clear, provable, and protectable ownership;
The standardization and integration of property rules and property information in the country as a whole;
Increased trust arising from a greater certainty of punishment for cheating in economic transactions;
More formal and complex written statements of ownership that permit the easier assumption of shared risk and ownership in companies, and insurance against risk;
Greater availability of loans for new projects, since more things could be used as collateral for the loans;
Easier access to and more reliable information regarding such things as credit history and the worth of assets;
Increased [fungibility], standardization and transferability of statements documenting the ownership of property, which paves the way for structures such as national markets for companies and the easy transportation of property through complex networks of individuals and other entities;
Greater protection of biodiversity due to minimizing of [shifting agriculture] practices.

All of the above enhance economic growth.

Types of property s.

Most [legal system]s distinguish different [type]s ([immovable property], [estate in land], [real estate], [real property]) of property, especially between land and all other forms of property - [goods] and [chattels], [movable property] or [personal property]. They often distinguish tangible and intangible property (see below).

One categorization scheme specifies three species of property: land, improvements (immovable man made things) and personal property (movable man made things)

In [common law], [real property] ([immovable property]) is the combination of interests in land and improvements thereto and [personal property] is interest in movable property.

Later, with the development of more complex forms of non-tangible property, personal property was divided into tangible property (such as [Automobile]s, [clothing], [animal]s) and intangible or [abstract property] (e.g. [financial instruments] such as [stock]s and [Bond (finance)], etc.), which includes [intellectual property] ([patent]s, [copyright]s, and [trademark]s).

What can be property? The two major justifications given for original property, or [homesteading], are effort and scarcity. [John Locke] emphasized effort, "mixing your labor" with an object, or clearing and cultivating virgin land. [Benjamin Tucker] preferred to look at the [Telos (philosophy)] of property, i.e. What is the purpose of property? His answer: to solve the scarcity problem. Only when items are relatively scarce with respect to people's desires do they become property. For example, hunter-gatherers did not consider land to be property, since there was no shortage of land. Agrarian societies later made arable land property, as it was scarce. For something to be economically scarce, it must necessarily have the exclusivity property - that use by one person excludes others from using it. These two justifications lead to different conclusions on what can be property. [Intellectual property] - non-corporeal things like ideas, plans, orderings and arrangements (musical compositions, novels, computer programs) - are generally considered valid property to those who support an effort justification, but invalid to those who support a scarcity justification (since they don't have the exclusivity property.) Thus even ardent [propertarian]s may disagree about IP. By either standard, one's body is one's property.

From some [anarchism] points of view, the validity of property depends on whether the "property right" requires enforcement by the state. Different forms of "property" require different amounts of enforcement: [intellectual property] requires a great deal of state intervention to enforce, ownership of distant physical property requires quite a lot, ownership of carried objects requires very little, while ownership of one's own body requires absolutely no state intervention.

Many things have existed that did not have an [owner], sometimes called the [commons]. The term "commons," however, is also often used to mean something quite different: "general collective ownership" - i.e. common ownership. Also, the same term is sometimes used by [statists] to mean government-owned property that the general public is allowed to access. Law in all societies has tended to develop towards reducing the number of things not having clear owners. Supporters of property rights argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources, due to the [tragedy of the commons], while critics argue that it leads to the exploitation of those resources for personal gain and that it hinders taking advantage of potential [network effects]. These arguments have differing validity for different types of "property" -- things which are not scarce are, for instance, not subject to the [tragedy of the commons]. Some apparent critics actually are advocating general collective ownership rather than ownerlessness.

Things today which do not have owners include: [idea]s (except for [intellectual property]), [seawater] (which is, however, protected by anti-pollution laws), parts of the [seafloor] (see the [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea] for restrictions), gasses in [Earth's atmosphere], animals in the wild (though there may be restrictions on hunting etc. -- and in some legal systems, such as that of New York, they are actually treated as government property), celestial bodies and outer space, and land in [Antarctica].

The nature of children under the age of majority is another contested issue here. In ancient societies children were generally considered the property of their parents. Children in most modern societies theoretically own their own bodies -- but they are considered incompetent to exercise their rights, and their parents or "guardians" are given most of the actual rights of control over them.

Questions regarding the nature of ownership of the body also come up in the issue of [abortion].

In many ancient legal systems (e.g. early [Roman law]), religious sites (e.g. [temple]s) were considered property of the [God] or gods they were devoted to. However, religious [Religious pluralism] makes it more convenient to have religious sites owned by the [religious body] that runs them.

[Intellectual property] and air ([airspace], [no-fly zone], pollution laws, which can include tradeable [emissions trading]) can be property in some senses of the word.

Who can be an owner? Ownership laws may vary widely among countries depending on the nature of the property of interest (e.g. firearms, real property, personal property, animals).In some societies only adult men may own property. In some societies [Juristic person], such as [corporations], [trust (property)], and nations (or governments) own property.

In the Inca empire, the dead emperors, who were considered gods, still controlled property after death. Mckay, John P. , 2004, "A History of World Societes". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company .

References

See also

[Allemansrätten]
[Anarchism]
[Capitalism]
[Communism]
[Grantee] and [Grantor]
[Homestead principle]
[Immovable Property]
[Inclusive Democracy]
[Libertarian]
[Lien]
[Ownership society]
[Patrimony]
[Propertarian]
[Property is theft]
[Property law]
[Property rights (economics)]
[Labor theory of property]
[Socialism]
[Sovereignty]

Property giving (legal)

[Charity (virtue)]
[Essenes]
[Gift]
[Kibbutz]
[Monasticism]
[Tithe], [Zakat] (modern sense)

Property taking (legal)

[Confiscation]
[Eminent domain]
[Fine]
[Regulation]
[Search and seizure]
[Tariffs]
[Tax]
[Turf and twig] (historical)
[Tithe], [Zakat] (historical sense)
[Zoning]

Property taking (illegal)

[Theft]
[Kleptocracy]

Property of either digital or virtual form

[Emerging Virtual Institutions]

References

[Frédéric Bastiat], 1850. Economic Harmonies. W. Hayden Boyers, trans.; George B. de Huszar, ed. Liberty Fund.
--------, 1850. The Law. Dean Russell, trans.
[Tom Bethell], 1998. The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages. New York: St. Martin's Press.
[William Blackstone], 1765-69. Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. Oxford Univ. Press. Especially Books the Second and Third.
[Hernando De Soto], 1989. The Other Path. Harper & Row.
[Hernando De Soto] and [Francis Cheneval], 2006. Realizing Property Rights. Ruffer & Rub.
Ellickson, Robert, 1993, "", Yale Law Journal 102: 1315-1400.
[Richard Pipes], 1999. Property and Freedom.
Mckay, John P. , 2004, "A History of World Societes". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company

External links and references

Property Law Case Summaries
"Property", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Private Property, Freedom, and the Rule of Law
"Right to Private Property", Tibor Machan, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"The Ethics and Economics of Private Property", Hans-Hermann Hoppe, van Mises Institute
[Buying agent]

Information Reference: Wikipedia.org

Property

Questions and Answers

Estate agent have sold a property to somebody else now - do i have a case against them??

Q) I require a bit of advice about an estate agent and whether I have a case against them. This is my story:- I made an enquiry with an estate agent about an “affordable home”. I was required to provide a £250 deposit in order to reserve this property. On 5th June 2007 I attended at the estate agents to find out more about the property. I had the £250 deposit cheque that I had been told to bring with me. I was very keen to purchase this property but the estate agent told me that they could not take the deposit cheque until they had proof we could fund the purchase. They therefore made me an appointment to see their mortgage advisor the following week. When I attended to see their mortgage advisor she confirmed to me I could obtain a mortgage for this property but that she could not take matters any further that day because something had come up a section 106 agreement on the property and she needed to find out more before she could proceed to arrange a mortgage. Whilst I was with her she told the estate agents not to take anyone else’s deposit for this property until she had clarified the position. She said as soon as she heard from the local authority or the developer she would get back to me in order that I could proceed with the purchase. She then telephoned me on Friday last week to say she still hadn’t heard anything about the s106 agreement and that she was due to be receiving an email and as soon as she received it she would be in touch. I said I was still very keen to proceed. However, on Monday this week I was looking on the estate agents website just out of interest and I noticed that the property I had enquired about was now sold subject to contract. I immediately contacted the estate agents and they confirmed that they had sold this property to somebody else. I explained the situation and how I had spoken to their mortgage advisor on Friday who said she was waiting to hear back still. They said to me that this person who is purchasing the property did not need a mortgage and the s106 agreement did not affect them. I have contacted the estate agents and they apologised to me and said that this has occurred because of a breakdown of communication between their company. I am very concerned and upset that they have now sold this property to somebody else. As far as I was concerned as soon as their mortgage advisor had received the information I would have been able to proceed. I was able to give the £250 deposit over two weeks ago but because of the difficulties that had arisen in relation to the s106 agreement I was told to hang on to it until the position was clearer I do not believe that I should miss out on the opportunity to purchase this property because of a lack of communication on their part. I am very keen to purchase this property and I would like to know whether there is anything that I can do or say to them so that I can proceed with the purchase. I do not believe I should lose out because of them.

A) Section 106 agreements are established by the planning departments of the local authority. I would call the local authority and enquire regarding the specific property you were trying to purchase. The purpose of these agreements is to ensure that there are a proportion 'affordable' homes built in new developments. If you were advised by the estate agent's mortgage adviser to get approval for a mortgage first before having your offer accepted and then the estate agent sells the property to a cash buyer - I suggest that there may have been a contravention of the s106 agreement. You need to find out exactly what the local authority agreement stipulated. If there is a dispute the same local authority's trading standards department may be able to advise you on what the next step should be.

Investment Property Share Opportunity in Spain for a 6 year term?

Q) Property investment has in the past only been available to clients that have significant capital to work with, however IPS now make property investment available to everyone with our shared property investment scheme called SPI. SPI works by bringing smaller investors together for a fixed term. They invest in a property together and when it is completed share the costs and use of it equally. The property is sold at the end of the investment term and the profit is shared similarly. With SPI you can invest in an exciting project with amazing potential for just over £5000 a quarter share. You can invest in a quarter share in a semi detached 3 bedroom villa in Costa Teguise in Lanzarote or in a two bedroom property on a golf and country club resort in Caravaca de la Cruz in Spain. For full details to be sent to you please ask. This is not an innovative ploy....you can contact me directly at laurie@ipspain.co.uk

A) Is this a innovative marketing Ploy ?

'PROPERTY'. This means 'home' or 'house' right? Does this 'new' word annoy you too?

Q) Its property this and property that. I've even heard idiots trying to sell their bed-sits calling it a property. In the true sense of the word it is 'property' but this is an estate-agent term but we all know they are inhuman moneybaggers that would sell your gran as 'property'. Come on your house is your home, not some cold commodity to make you rich surely? When did you last hear somebody trying to sell their 'house' or 'home' ?

A) Too right matey. I recently briefly dated this moran who had just bought his first 'flat' to get onto the 'property ladder'. He kept going on about how he was doing this and that to the 'property' and you would never think that he might actually need to live in it. Mabye they should make those little name plates that say 'The Property', certainly a change from 'Bluebell Cottage'. ... and while they are at it, why not stick a 'property ladder' against the wall in case the roof tiles fall off. After all, there is so much wind blowing about, this is likely to happen. lol! ;-)

advice on property please,?

Q) what makes better financial sense.I own a property that would fetch offers over 70k [scotland ] i am mortgage free.I Want to buy a new property at offers over 80k should i - (option 1) sell my property and stay mortgage free (option 2) rent out my own and rely on the rent paying 80% of the mortgage payments on new property [not sure if i would even get mortgage for this amount even using my house as colateral as i am on very low income at the moment ] (option3) buy new property out right and obtain small motgage for family members council house [would get full discount ] this property is in higher priced area than my own, has one less bedroom and fetches offers over 70k in resale, but would not receive any financial returns from it for many years. In an ideal world would love to be able to own all 3 but wouldn't want to risk losing my own or family members home p.s have no pension. would be really !!!! grateful for any advice hope all this makes sense still have over 30 years till retire

A) Having more property is better long term but option 2 doesnt stand well if you have a low income. How do you pay both mortgages if your old house is not rented out. You always have to budget for months when you have no tenant. Could you afford the cost if say the house wasnt rented out for 4 months of the year? Sometimes you have to take risks. Option 1 is safe. No worries. Option 2 is not an option if you couldnt pay both mortgages for a period of time. Option 3 is a risk but relatively safe as the is only i mortgage to pay. Good luck.

My property valuation is incorrect?

Q) I purchased a 3bed semi 3yrs ago & the valuation report identified the property being constructed of bricks & render. The property is up for sale now & have had a lot of interest. Within 2wks I agreed an offer by an investor as I wanted a quick sale. When he had his survey it came to light that the property is in fact a Wimpey No fines concrete build NOT brick. My buyer pulled out of the sale as his mortgage lender does not mortgage concrete buildings. I am now having problems finding a buyer willing to pay the same amount as my original buyer. Has anyone had a similar experience or can someone advise if it is possible to be compensated by the surveyors that originally did the valuation report as if I do take up the offer made by new interested parties it would be £3-5k less than the original sale price & I will have also accrued extra mortgage payments due to the inconvenience of putting the property back on the market.

A) Firstly, the surveyor was negligent. If the inspection was on behalf of the mortgage lender, even though you probably paid for the report, the duty of care is to the lender. The best re-course is for you to place a formal complaint with the surveying firm (every RICS firm has a Complaints Procedure). All RICS firms are insured so if the negligence is plainly obvious they should want to settle without any fuss. Th run-off insurance usually lasts for at least 7 years so you will be fully entitled to claim. If you have no joy take the complaint to the RICS themselves (rics.org.uk). You should also ask your mortgage company to investigate further as they will have more weight to win compensation if your complaint to the firm meets a brick wall. If your mortgage company is successful then the loan amount should be reduced proportionately. You may consider getting an independent report anyway to support your complaint - the more weight you can add from the start the better. Add the costs onto your claim! This is a perfect example of why buyers should always commission an independent Homebuyers Report or Building Survey rather than relying on the basic information a mortgage valuation provides. Make sure you do so when you next buy. I am a chartered surveyor and the reason why the reports 'are worth the paper they're written on' is because there is always recourse if problems arise. Valuations and reports are always subject to the surveyors opinion on that day - but a fundamental fault such as yours should not happen. Good luck. PM me at tickeverybox.com/forums if you have any other questions.

Property in France - Best place to sell from the UK?

Q) I have a small property in France that I would like to sell, I have tried the local agents out there but they are useless and aren't bothered in selling my property. It needs total renovation and they tell me only completed properties with lots of land sell. Mine has 3 potential gites will small amount of land, just outside a village surrounded by farmland, approx 1hr south of Caen. How can I sell it with limited expense and hassle?

A) Hi, I'm a french student in Australia, doing a master of Property & Development here in Sydney. I have previous experience working within the real estate industry in France and we still have a few real estate agencies there but not in the area where your property is located. I could perhaps help u if u need to communicate with any french real estate agent. Do not hesitate to contact me if u need help. cheers

Which property of the real numbers is illustrated by the following statement?

Q) Which property of the real numbers is illustrated by the following statement? 7 • 3 = 3 • 7 A.) Associative property of multiplication B.) Distributive property C.) Commutative property of multiplication

A) C is correct (2 previous answers). Commutative means "changing around". If you change around the 2 or more elements of a multiplication the answer does not change: 2 x 3 x 7 = 7 x 2 x 3. It does not matter whether the numbers are +ve or -ve: the commutative property still holds. Contrary to what some textbooks say, the same is true under addition. 4 - 6 = -6 + 4. The minus sign belongs with the number after it and it does not matter which order you take the numbers in - the minus sign shifts with the 6, and the answer is still -2. If you want to be very pure-mathematical about it you can spell it 4 + (-6) etc. but it really makes only a cosmetic difference. Maths, like other languages, has its colloquialisms and abbreviations and we should respect them.

property maintenance in costa del sol spain?

Q) i have recently bought a property in spain, i am looking for properties to maintain for people renting their own property to holiday makers etc, has anybody any advice

A) Try contacting Estate Agents who are selling properties. They could pass your details onto anyone buying with the intention of renting out. Also try rental agencies, they could give you some pointers. I have to say though that there are several small companies offering this service already...however, that doesn't mean that there isn't room for another, the way they are throwing up properties down here, there should be plenty of work available....good luck:)

Working in Property?

Q) Is it a good idea to get into property? As in working for property companies ie, property advisors, administrators, property managers? I need a new job but I want to do something that's going to get me somewhere and keep my mind active. What are the benifits?

A) Hi If the property industry interests you then go for it, better to try nad not like than not try and never know. Have you thought about working with people, supporting them to a better way of life? That role can be challenging, keep you on your toes and be very rewarding. How about trying the following.... Go visit the job centre, stand in front of one of the terminals and investigate the thousands of jobs they have on offer. You dont have to apply for any but reading about various jobs may point you in the direction you want your career to go. There's nothing to lose either really. Hope this helps and good luck. Happy Jobhunting Dean

we recently had our property back from storage with a lot of things missing?

Q) we had been accepted for a house with a local estate agent, he had given us access to the keys tobegin moving our property in, we were due to meet with the agent ont he moving in date at the property to pay our deposit, two days before the moving in date the agent phoned to say the landlord had changed his mind and had decided to rent to a local family instead, we were then homeless as we had given notice on the property we were living in, to cut it short we had to stay with family and the agent agreed to have our things put into storage, he would cover the cost of the removals and us the storage, he removed the property himself and put into storage, we have since found a new home and paid a considerable amount of money to get our things returned,(in storage 12 months) We dont know what to do to get our property back or if we have a leg to stand on as we cannot prove anything any advice

A) I would have thought you would be insured against losses. If you were not-- Write to the agent and list the items missing. Give him a period of time to return the items say a fortnight. If you don`t get them back write again with the value and say again if no money is forthcoming you will take him to the small claims court.

Wife's Property in Islam v Christianity and Judaism?

Q) The Jewish tradition regarding the husband’s role towards his wife stems from the conception that he owns her as he owns his slave. This conception has been the reason behind the double standard in the laws of adultery and behind the husband’s ability to annul his wife’s vows. This conception has also been responsible for denying the wife any control over her property or her earnings. As soon as a Jewish woman got married, she completely lost any control over her property and earnings to her husband. Jewish Rabbis asserted the husband’s right to his wife’s property as a corollary of his possession of her: “Since one has come into the possession of the woman does it not follow that he should come into the possession of her property too?”, and “Since he has acquired the woman should he not acquire also her property?” Thus, marriage caused the richest woman to become practically penniless. The Talmud describes the financial situation of a wife as follows: “How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hers is also his... Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband...” (San. 71a, Git. 62a) The fact of the matter is that the property of a Jewish female was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate to be used as a dowry in case of marriage. It was this dowry that made Jewish daughters an unwelcome burden to their fathers. The father had to raise his daughter for years and then prepare for her marriage by providing a large dowry. Thus, a girl in a Jewish family was a liability and no asset[21]. This liability explains why the birth of a daughter was not celebrated with joy in the old Jewish society (see the “Shameful Daughters” section). The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband would act as the practical owner of the dowry but he could not sell it. The bride would lose any control over the dowry at the moment of marriage. Moreover, she was expected to work after marriage and all her earnings had to go to her husband in return for her maintenance which was his obligation. She could regain her property only in two cases: divorce or her husband’s death. Should she die first, he would inherit her property. In the case of the husband’s death, the wife could regain her pre-marital property but she was not entitled to inherit any share in her deceased husband’s own property. It has to be added that the groom also had to present a marriage gift to his bride, yet again he was the practical owner of this gift as long as they were married. Christianity, until recently, has followed the same Jewish tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the Christian Roman Empire (after Constantine) required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Families offered their daughters increasing dowries and, as a result, men tended to marry earlier while families postponed their daughters’ marriages until later than had been customary. Under Canon law, a wife was entitled to restitution of her dowry if the marriage was annulled unless she was guilty of adultery. In this case, she forfeited her right to the dowry which remained in her husband’s hands. Under Canon and civil law a married woman in Christian Europe and America had lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women’s rights under English law were compiled and published in 1632. These ‘rights’ included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” The wife not only lost her property upon marriage, she lost her personality as well. No act of her was of legal value. Her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her as being of no binding legal value. The person with whom she had any contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue or be sued in her own name, nor could she sue her own husband. A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. The wife simply belonged to her husband and therefore she lost her property, her legal personality, and her family name. Islam, since the seventh century C.E., has granted married women the independent personality which the Judaeo-Christian West had deprived them until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation whatsoever to present a gift to the groom. The girl in a Muslim family is no liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts in order to attract potential husbands. It is the groom who must present the bride with a marriage gift. This gift is considered her property and neither the groom nor the bride’s family have any share in or control over it. In some Muslim societies today, a marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual. The bride retains her marriage gifts even if she is later divorced. The husband is not allowed any share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent. The Qur’an has stated its position on this issue quite clearly: “And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, Of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.”(4:4) The wife’s property and earnings are under her full control and for her use alone since her, and the children’s, maintenance is her husband’s responsibility. No matter how rich the wife might be, she is not obliged to act as a co-provider for the family unless she herself voluntarily chooses to do so. Spouses do inherit from one another. Moreover, a married woman in Islam retains her independent legal personality and her family na. An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim women saying: “ A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own.” The three religions share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. They also agree on the leadership of the husband over the family. Nevertheless, blatant differences do exist among the three religions with respect to the limits of this leadership. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, unlike Islam, virtually extends the leadership of the husband into ownership of his wife.

A) Shukran for the information, brother

Wife's Property Jewish, christian and Muslim?

Q) The Jewish tradition regarding the husband’s role towards his wife stems from the conception that he owns her as he owns his slave. This conception has been the reason behind the double standard in the laws of adultery and behind the husband’s ability to annul his wife’s vows. This conception has also been responsible for denying the wife any control over her property or her earnings. As soon as a Jewish woman got married, she completely lost any control over her property and earnings to her husband. Jewish Rabbis asserted the husband’s right to his wife’s property as a corollary of his possession of her: “Since one has come into the possession of the woman does it not follow that he should come into the possession of her property too?”, and “Since he has acquired the woman should he not acquire also her property?” Thus, marriage caused the richest woman to become practically penniless. The Talmud describes the financial situation of a wife as follows: “How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hers is also his... Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband...” (San. 71a, Git. 62a) The fact of the matter is that the property of a Jewish female was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate to be used as a dowry in case of marriage. It was this dowry that made Jewish daughters an unwelcome burden to their fathers. The father had to raise his daughter for years and then prepare for her marriage by providing a large dowry. Thus, a girl in a Jewish family was a liability and no asset. This liability explains why the birth of a daughter was not celebrated with joy in the old Jewish society (see the “Shameful Daughters” section). The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband would act as the practical owner of the dowry but he could not sell it. The bride would lose any control over the dowry at the moment of marriage. Moreover, she was expected to work after marriage and all her earnings had to go to her husband in return for her maintenance which was his obligation. She could regain her property only in two cases: divorce or her husband’s death. Should she die first, he would inherit her property. In the case of the husband’s death, the wife could regain her pre-marital property but she was not entitled to inherit any share in her deceased husband’s own property. It has to be added that the groom also had to present a marriage gift to his bride, yet again he was the practical owner of this gift as long as they were married. Christianity, until recently, has followed the same Jewish tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the Christian Roman Empire (after Constantine) required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Families offered their daughters increasing dowries and, as a result, men tended to marry earlier while families postponed their daughters’ marriages until later than had been customary. Under Canon law, a wife was entitled to restitution of her dowry if the marriage was annulled unless she was guilty of adultery. In this case, she forfeited her right to the dowry which remained in her husband’s hands[24]. Under Canon and civil law a married woman in Christian Europe and America had lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women’s rights under English law were compiled and published in 1632. These ‘rights’ included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” The wife not only lost her property upon marriage, she lost her personality as well. No act of her was of legal value. Her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her as being of no binding legal value. The person with whom she had any contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue or be sued in her own name, nor could she sue her own husband. A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. The wife simply belonged to her husband and therefore she lost her property, her legal personality, and her family name. Islam, since the seventh century C.E., has granted married women the independent personality which the Judaeo-Christian West had deprived them until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation whatsoever to present a gift to the groom. The girl in a Muslim family is no liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts in order to attract potential husbands. It is the groom who must present the bride with a marriage gift. This gift is considered her property and neither the groom nor the bride’s family have any share in or control over it. In some Muslim societies today, a marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual. The bride retains her marriage gifts even if she is later divorced. The husband is not allowed any share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent. The Qur’an has stated its position on this issue quite clearly: “And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, Of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.”(4:4) The wife’s property and earnings are under her full control and for her use alone since her, and the children’s, maintenance is her husband’s responsibility. No matter how rich the wife might be, she is not obliged to act as a co-provider for the family unless she herself voluntarily chooses to do so. Spouses do inherit from one another. Moreover, a married woman in Islam retains her independent legal personality and her family name. An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim women saying: “ A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own.” The three religions share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. They also agree on the leadership of the husband over the family. Nevertheless, blatant differences do exist among the three religions with respect to the limits of this leadership. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, unlike Islam, virtually extends the leadership of the husband into ownership of his wife.

A) Salam Alykom Brother, God bless you for trying to point out the differences. I only hope that others will open their minds and learn a little andnot meet your posts with such negativity. Salam To the person below me - I am a MODERN AMERICAN, I just don't dress in modern fashion that shows more skin then it covers. We are not in the stone age, we only follow our religion truthfully, where others choose what parts they wish to follow. The bible says for women to cover, but so few Christians do. "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head" 1 Corrinthians 11:3-6 "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" 1 Timothy 2:9-10 As for your B.S. ranting about Honor killings, Taking child brides, female circumcision. Yes they are still done, by Muslims, Chrsitians, and Jews. They are DISGUSTING cultural rituals, not religious. As for divorce in Islam, the woman not only leaves the marriage with what she started, but the husband is also responsible to support her, and do so with out having to pay an attorney or having to hope that the judge will take pitty on her. It is a shame, out of all you posted, none of it holds any water. Sounds like you are not stuck in the stone age, but just stuck in pure ignorance.

easy math property questions?

Q) # The property demonstrated in the following equation is (10 × x) + y = y + (10 × x) associative property of addition commutative property of addition commutative property of multiplication Neither side of the equation is equal to the other. # The property demonstrated in the following equation is (2x – 4y)3 + 5z = 6x – 4y + 5z substitution property of equality distributive property reflexive property of equality Neither side of the equation is equal to the other. # The property demonstrated in the following equation is 5 + (8x × y)2z = 5 + 8x(y × 2z) associative property of multiplication commutative property of multiplication distributive property Neither side of the equation is equal to the other. To maintain a 92% average, what score does Kari need on her next algebra test if her test scores have been 89, 96, 90, and 85 thus far? 92 95 98 100 Don't worry, this isn't my homework...Besides, I'm in pre-calculus as a sophmore in highschool. Oh, and school starts on the 8th of Sept.

A) 1. commutative prop. of addition 2. distributive prop. 3. associative prop. of mult. 4. 100 I think that answers all of them.

property leins?

Q) I am looking into purchasing this property it has a house on it that got badly burnt. someone who knows the owner of the property said that their were leins against the house and property.I need to know where I can find out about how many leins are on the property and how much the leins are for.I know that the property taxes havent been paid for a while I need to know where to find out about other leins on the property. Is their a free website where I can look up leins on property and get free results.

A)

Islamic property law. Is it wrong to designate woman as property (Quran 2:223)?

Q) Quran 2:223 “your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like ...” http://www.usc.edu/dept/msa/quran/002.qmt.html Notice the nasty purpose of this aya (verse). The only purpose of this aya is to let Muslim men know that they can have sex whenever they like with their woman-property, irrespective of her consent. The Quran very clearly designates woman as property. The above aya is one clear example. A "tilth" is a form of property, and we can all use "our" property whenever we like. In the west, this would be called legalized rape. A man must have the consent of a woman, wife or not, to have sex, because, unlike Islam, we dont consider woman to be property. This verse literally says "hey guys, shes your property, dont worry, its legal to hit that up whenever you want, dont worry about her screaming or running to the authorities, cause she wont have a case". Calmness: You blind? Wow does religion make people stupid. Go "into YOUR TILTH' when....when? when?? Ohhh ohhh...."WHEN YOU LIKE". So its you (the man) that decides based on when "you like".

A) u r right.

Property tax question....?

Q) Sold my primary home in June of 2006. The attorney prorated the property taxes on the settlement statement leaving the buyer responsible for the full payment of the 2006 property taxes. The amount due to me as seller was reduced and was credited to the buyer. Do I get to claim this reduction as property taxes paid? Previous property taxes were paid through my escrow account. So the banking institution did not report that I paid property taxes on this home in 2006. The 1099-S received by the attorney did not report that I paid property taxes either. Thanks.

A) Yes you can claim the portion that was credited as paid by you in 2006 to the date of sale For federal income tax purposes, the seller is treated as paying the property taxes up to, but not including, the date of sale. You (the seller) are treated as paying the taxes ending with the date of sale. This applies regardless of the lien dates under local law. Generally, this information is included on the settlement statement you get at closing. Publication 530 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p530/ar02.html#d0e285

Property line dispute - how far should I go (i.e. property survey)?

Q) We live in a twin and currently have a (mild) dispute with our non-attached neighbors over our property line. I have a few specific questions: 1. There are 2 iron rods about 2 feet apart at one back corner of our lot on the non-attached neighbor side. We suspect the neighbors put at least one up themselves as a marker. How far up are the real "pins" that mark property lines - these are about 3 feet above ground so could they be legit? 2. Our neighbor claims that our driveway is about 1.5-2 feet into their property. We just bought the house a year ago and no survey was done prior to sale. If that couple feet actually is over their property line, would we have to "give it back" or is it ours because we bought the house in good faith on the size of the driveway? 3. We should definitely get a professional property survey done, right? We live in PA, if that helps. Thanks for the advice!

A) My opinion is that the first thing you should do if you feel that the neighbors are encroaching on your property is to stop any adverse possession claim they may have and buy time to straighten out the concern. I would send them a letter stating that you are reviewing the property lines and that you will be doing so with a surveyor and that in the meantime you are granting them permission to encroach if in the event an encroachment on their part is found by the surveyor. This type of letter is all you need to stop adverse possession if they have not yet met the time requirements of adverse possession laws in your state. Then I would hire a surveyor to do an ILR (Improvement Location Report) which is a type of survey but not a full blown costly survey which determines the actual location of the property lines. Of course if there is a dispute then you will need a legal beagle to help you. Best of luck to you

Property Taxes?

Q) I have some property in Clyde,Park montana and I forgot to pay my first half property taxes.So I owe first half and second half is not due until may I plan to send in full payment on Monday as I live out of state.On my statement it says warning this property is the subject of a tax sale.I need to know if anyone knows how many years you can be delinquent in the state of montana on your property taxes before it goes up for tax sale or where I can find information on montana property tax laws.I have always paid my property taxes on time this is the first time I have been late. I need to know some info so I do not have to worry about this all weekend.

A) http://www.mt.gov/revenue/forindividuals/property/documents/understandingpropertytaxbro.pdf http://stab.mt.gov/

Can a commercial property have a hardship in Oregon?

Q) We own a commercial property in Douglas County Oregon. The property has a house and commercial building as well as a 2000 double-wide manufactured on it. All to code meeting residential setbacks as this is in a "dual useage" area. Even though the property is zoned commercial the city made us apply for a hardship in order to put the Manufactured home on the property for my ailing father. He has since passed away and the city granted the hardship to my mother. She is moving and would like to use the property as rental income, rent the manufactured and house, and lease out the business. The city wants the Manufactured home removed as the hardship will be invalid once she moves. Can they d this? the property is zoned commercial and as far as I know you can build up to the property lines on a commercial lot. The city states that there is too many buildings on the property, however they allowed us to build the commercial building AFTER the hardship was granted. I appreciate the responses.

A) I have property in Gold Hill that I rent out. It all boils down to the fact that Mobile Homes can not be used as rentals in Oregon. Once you remove the mobile home, which is legally a vehicle, not a house, you should be OK to rent the rest of it.

rental property calculation?

Q) Sue has residence with adjusted basis of $200,000 and a FMV of $150,000; later sue decide to convert the resident into a rental property; once year, later taking the depreciation of $15,000, she is considering selling the property. Determine the results if she sell the property for $130,000. or $165,000 if the property selling for $130,000: to me i think the answer is: $200,000 - $15,000 = 185,000 adjusted basis 130,000 - 185,000 = -55,000 realize loss which can deduct against taxable income; if the property selling for $165,000: same basis $185,000, $165,000 - $185,000 = - $20,000 recognize loss against taxable income is the above correct? please correct me if i am wrong; and also when you convert a home resident to a rental property is there anything particular need to becareful with?

A) unless you are a bona fide real estate processional a capital loss is not deductible on a personal income tax return (rental or not)...... the depreciation taken in prior years would be required to be recaptured this would result in additional income to be reported on the return. the income may consist of capital gain and/ or ordinary income (section 1245 and 1250, possiblly section 1231). once a home is converted to business property it changes the dynamics immensely and should never be done by a lay person without serious consideration and consultation with a tax professional to determine the tax implications in your particular case. (every one is different and every financial decision such as this has many implications.