The term 'Property' in semantics denotes 'to own'. Its linguistic, cultural, philosophical, and legal evolution start from Latin 'Propius', then in French it was known as 'Propret'e', middle English named it 'Propete', then what we know today as 'Property'. There are various theories of Property, starting with Natural Law theorist like Blackstone, Pufendruf. They believe in natural reason, in a way prefer possession of object who occupies first, but positivist like Herbert Spencer mixes it up with labour. The father of metaphysics Immanuel Kant and one of the great metaphysicians, Hegel find out personality interconnected with property. They believe that it is 'Capacity to Will' which segregates human's kingdom from the 'Law of Nature', in that sense property is the natural extension of personality, it expresses the 'Will' of a human being. The Positivist like Thomas Hobbes also gives importance to the labour in relation to the Property. But his conception of Property is incomplete without Lockean analysis in 'The Second Treatise on Government', whereas he, on the one hand, recognized 'Right to Property', including life and liberty, as one of the inalienable rights, a right which cannot be transferred, cannot be taken away, which naturally exists in every human being, whoever mixes up labour in unowned goods and makes that his/her own. According to him, the problem arises in 'State of Nature', when every human being becomes the self-executioner of his/her rights. That's how the Commonwealth is accepted whereas some portions of these inalienable rights are surrendered for the common good. The theory propounded by John Locke creats a crisis of 'Possesive Individualism', to refer Thomas McPherson. On the one hand, he puts emphasis on natural right, but on the hand he converts property into juridical right whereas law seems to create Property. In spite of his famous 'Lockean Proviso', his Idea of Property is mirred with 'colonial prejudice'. Notably as a colonizer he himself acquired the huge amount of Property in Latin America by fencing there, and justified his activities in the name of labour. The third master in the Masters of Order, J.J. Rousseau prefers Juridical conception of Property over natural one. Reason being, his Idea of 'General and Particular Will' does justify a Social Contract, and a Social Contract seems to be a mother of the Right to Property, as per his articulation in 'The Second Discourse'.
The other factions of Positivists like Bentham went with Psychological theory, and justified human's nature, which is, as per him, prone to acquisitiveness. For example we like to have more and more books, more knowledge, more prosperity. There is no end of 'more'. For Bentham 'Natural Law is nonsense'. For him, the Right to Property is a creation of Law, like legal personality.
The Functional and Sociological School prefer to see Property as a Social category which provides the greatest goods for greatest numbers. The Social Utilitarian like Jhering and Roscoe Pound profess this view. On the other hand, Duguit as a sociologist finds Property as a medium to increase Social Solidarity.
Historical school by its nature tries to decipher three important stages by which property as an institution evolved, from initial acquisition, to property as a juridical concept, then ownership. Especially Henry Maine finds these evolutionary stages in the village communities of India.
Then, the discourse on property is internalised in the Constitutional schemata, justified by liberal Philosopher like John Rawls. His difference principle in 'The Theory of Justice' does justify "distributive justice", a theory earlier coined by Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics. He is vehemently opposed by his contemporary thinkers, such as Robert Nozick. In his seminal work, 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia', he rejects the Rawlsian and Utilitarian conception of justice by referring them as "paternalist". He is of the view that income and wealth are earned by two legal methods; acquisition and transfer. And in case of any other method one employs to earn property, State does justify in its intervention. Once property is earned by legal means the State has no business to intervene in the affairs of the Citizens. Somehow Nozick's ideas are reduced to its impracticality by Social choice theorist Amartya Sen, another colleague of Rawls, who propounds 'capability approach' along with Kenneth Arrow and Martha Nussabaum. Especially Developmental and Welfare economists are the sworn enemies to the 'Entitlement Theory of Justice' propounded by Robert Nozick.
I don't see Property as a metaphysical concept which allows freedom like Hegel, Kant, or Rawls for that matter suggest. Property to my mind is merely an instrument and not an end itself, however contrary picture appears in the era of globalisation. All the property on this Earth is in that sense the property in Property. It is a Social category which has its limited functions. However, in reality Property has transformed all the public reasonings, and has become the 'basic structure' of today's Nation State, to refer Marx, upon which the building blocks of legal and political principles were/are established. Initially Property remained within the domain of legal rules, later on overpowered the legal and political principles, and in today's world, especially in the era of multi-national corporations, and crypto-currency, it is in fact a self-existent entity. All the legal rules are merely subordinate to it.
Comments
Post a Comment