Chapter 1: Why “Property” - Foreign Military Studies Office - U.S. Army

distinction between government and owner is often clear, it is as oftennot.The word liberal adds difficulty to our assertion about propertyand peace. Liberal and formal are not the same qualities. Formalproperty ownership entails comprehensive, precise and transparentevidence of ownership, the logic of which can be duly enforced.Liberal, meanwhile, refers to the most basic rules delimiting thedistribution of rights, however evidenced. A property regime is moreor less liberal to the extent different categories of person are admittedas owners and a broader array of rights can be had. This text does notstay completely clear of the debate over the relative advantages ofprivate as opposed to common ownership, but that debate itself can be afetter. The ultimate expression of private ownership -- total,independent, unencumbered and uncompromised individual exercise ofrights in land -- may not constitute property ownership at all. Such acondition is sovereign lordship, which must be defended by unyieldingforce. It is only when lords reach agreement with their neighbors thatproperty is created. That is to say, in order to speak of property at allan agreement must exist regarding conflict resolution – which leadsinexorably to the recognition of a role for government. Mundane factsof ownership show how complex and subtle the lines between privateand common ownership rights actually are. So, rather than focusingsolely on owner rights, we want also to underline duties, and especiallythose of government in the social contract. We see that where the Statefails to shoulder its immediate duties (conflict resolution andprevention or amelioration of trespass), the property regime is lesslikely to promote human flourishing, and that the reverse is true also: tothe extent governments do shoulder duties; the balance in the socialcontract favors the prospects of peace, prosperity and freedom. Ratherthan claim that this or that balance between individual and communalownership is best, the argument herein favors liberal property regimesthat feature fluidity, divisibility, precision and transparency indetermining the balance.There are, then, two broad qualities that this book advocates11