“Blin and Marín note that our received notions of “private property,” as asserted by John Locke, have become a tool for a privileged few to oppress and dispossess the many, all in the name of freedom…”

1. Locke on property is misinterpreted and twisted as much as Adam Smith

2. Locke was a philosopher, not a jurist. Private property in philosophy and in law are two very different animals.

In law, all property ownership is conditional and has been for thousands of years. Even the so-called “fee simple absolute title” in US real estate law confers far less than absolute ownership. Several sticks from the “bundle of rights” always remain in the possession of the state. And in many cases the rest of the bundle is divided multiple ways.

It is fair to say that very few people (including lawyers) really know much about property law and that much of the public mythology about property comes from popular misinterpretations of philosophers like Locke. These misinterpretations affect how people use and mange property, but such cases are analogous to using the wrong end of a hammer. The problem is user error, not hammer design.

There are many good reasons to protect our legacy of property law, especially from philosophers. I try to cover most of them, including those pertaining to the commons, in

“All Ownership is Conditional”

Poor Richard