Ownership is the state or fact of legal possession and control overproperty, which may be any asset,tangible orintangible. Ownership can involve multiple rights, collectively referred to astitle, which may be separated and held by different parties.
The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex: one can gain, transfer, and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one canpurchase it withmoney, trade it for other property, win it in a bet, receive it as agift,inherit it,find it, receive it asdamages, earn it by doing work or performing services,make it, orhomestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property byselling it formoney,exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift,misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such aseviction,foreclosure,seizure, ortaking. Ownership implies that the owner of a property also owns anyeconomic benefits or deficits associated with the property.
Over themillennia and across cultures, notions regarding what constitutes "property" and how it is treated culturally have varied widely. Ownership is the basis for many other concepts that form the foundations of ancient and modern societies such asmoney,trade,debt,bankruptcy, thecriminality oftheft, and private vs. public property. Ownership is the key building block in the development of thecapitalistsocio-economic system.[1]Adam Smith stated that one of the sacred laws of justice was to guard a person's property and possessions.[2]
Individuals may own property directly. In some societies only adult men may own property;[3][failed verification] in other societies (such as theHaudenosaunee), property ismatrilinear and passed on from mother to the offspring.[4] In most societies both men and women can own property with no restrictions and limitations at all.[5]
Throughout history,nations (orgovernments) andreligious organizations have owned property. These entities exist primarily for purposes other than to own or operate property; hence, they may have no clear rules regarding thedisposition of their property.
To own and operate property, structures (often known today aslegal entities) have been created in many societies throughout history. The differences in how they deal with members' rights is a key factor in determining their type. Each type has advantages and disadvantages derived from their means of recognizing or disregarding (rewarding or not) contributions of financial capital or personal effort.
Cooperatives,corporations,trusts,partnerships, andcondominium associations are only some of the many varied types of structured ownership; each type has many subtypes. Legal advantages or restrictions on various types of structured ownership have existed in many societies past and present. To govern how assets are to be used, shared, or treated, rules and regulations may be legally imposed or internally adopted or decreed.
Ownership by definition does not necessarily imply a responsibility to others for actions regarding the property. A "legal shield" is said to exist if the entity'slegal liabilities do not get redistributed among the entity's owners or members. An application of this, to limit ownership risks, is to form a new entity (such as ashell company) to purchase, own and operate each property. Since the entity is separate and distinct from others, if a problem occurs which leads to a massive liability, the individual is protected from losing more than the value of that one property. Many other properties are protected, when owned by other distinct entities.
In the loosest sense of group ownership, a lack of legal framework, rules and regulations may mean that group ownership of property places each member in a position of responsibility (liability) for the actions of every other member. A structured group duly constituted as an entity under law may still not protect members from being personally liable for each other's actions. Court decisions against the entity itself may give rise to unlimited personal liability for each and every member. An example of this situation is a professional partnership (e.g.law practice) in somejurisdictions. Thus, being a partner or owner in a group may give little advantage in terms of share ownership while producing a lot of risk to the partner, owner or participant.
At the end of eachfiscal year,accounting rules determine a surplus or profit, which may be retained inside the entity or distributed among owners according to the initial setup intent when the entity was created. For public corporations, commonshareholders have no right to receive any of the profit.
Entities with amember focus will give financial surplus back to members according to the volume of financial activity that the participating member generated for the entity. Examples of this are producer cooperatives, buyer cooperatives and participating whole life policyholders in both mutual andshare-capitalinsurance companies.
Entities withshared voting rights that depend on financial capital distribute surplus among shareholders without regard to any other contribution to the entity. Depending on internal rules and regulations, certain classes of shares have the right to receive increases in financial "dividends" while other classes do not. After many years the increase over time is substantial if the business is profitable. Examples of this are common shares and preferred shares in private or publicly listed share capital corporations.
Entities with a focus on providing servicein perpetuam do not distribute financial surplus; they must retain it. It will then serve as a cushion against losses or as a means to finance growth activities. Examples of this are not-for-profit entities: they are allowed to make profits, but are not permitted to give any of it back to members except by way of discounts in the future on new transactions.
Depending on thecharter at the foundation of the entity, and depending on the legal framework under which the entity was created, the form of ownership is determined once and for all time. To change it requires significant work in terms of communicating with stakeholders (member-owners, governments, etc.) and acquiring their approval. Whatever structural constraints or disadvantages exist at the creation thus remain an integral part of the entity. Common in, for instance,New York City,Hamburg, andBerlin is a form of real estate ownership known as acooperative (also co-operative or co-op, inGermanWohnungsgenossenschaft – apartment co-operative, also "Wohnbaugenossenschaft" or simply "Baugenossenschaft") which relies heavily on internal rules of operation instead of the legal framework governing condominium associations. These "co-ops", owning the building for the mutual benefit of its members, can ultimately perform most of the functions of a legally constituted condominium, i.e. restricting use appropriately and containing financial liabilities to within tolerable levels. To change their structure now that they are up and operating would require significant effort to achieve acceptance among members and various levels of government.
The owning entity makes rules governing use of property; each property may comprise areas that are made available to any and every member of the group to use. When the group is the entire nation, the same principle is in effect whether the property is small (e.g.picnic rest stops alonghighways) or large (such asnational parks, highways, ports, and publicly owned buildings). Smaller examples of shared use include common areas such as lobbies, entrancehallways and passages to adjacent buildings.
One disadvantage of communal ownership, known as theTragedy of the Commons, occurs where unlimited unrestricted and unregulated access to a resource (e.g. pasture land) destroys the resource because ofover-exploitation. The benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals immediately, while the costs of policing or enforcing appropriate use, and the losses dues to over exploitation, are distributed among many, and are only visible to these gradually.
In acommunist nation, the means of production of goods would be owned communally by all people of that nation; the original thinkers did not specify rules and regulations.
Personal property is a type ofproperty. In thecommon law systems personal property may also be calledchattels. It is distinguished fromreal property, orreal estate. In thecivil law systems personal property is often calledmovable property or movables – any property that can be moved from one location or another. This term is used to distinguish property that different fromimmovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings. This also means the direct owner of the item(s) is in full control of them/it until either stolen,confiscated bylaw enforcement, or destroyed.
Personal property may be classified in a variety of ways, such asgoods,money,negotiable instruments,securities, andintangible assets includingchoses in action.
Real estate orimmovable property is alegal term (in some jurisdictions) that encompasses land along with anything permanently affixed to the land, such asbuildings. Real estate (immovable property) is often considered synonymous withreal property, in contrast frompersonal property (also sometimes calledchattel orpersonalty). However, for technical purposes, some people prefer to distinguish real estate, referring to the land and fixtures themselves, from real property, referring to ownership rights over real estate. The termsreal estate andreal property are used primarily incommon law, whilecivil lawjurisdictions refer instead toimmovable property.
In law, the wordreal means relating to a thing (fromLatinreālis, ultimately fromrēs, 'matter' or 'thing'), as distinguished from a person. Thus the law broadly distinguishes betweenreal property (land and anything affixed to it) andpersonal property (everything else, e.g., clothing, furniture, money). The conceptual difference is between immovable property, which would transfer title along with the land, and movable property, which a person would retain title to.
With the development of privateproperty ownership, real estate has become a major area ofbusiness.
An individual or group of individuals can own shares in corporations and otherlegal entities, but do not necessarily own the entities themselves. A legal entity is alegal construct through which the law allows a group ofnatural persons to act as if it were anindividual for certain purposes.
Some duly incorporated entities may not be owned by individuals nor by other entities; they exist without being owned once they are created. Not being owned, they cannot be bought and sold. Mutual life insurance companies,credit unions,foundations andcooperatives, not for profit organizations, and public corporations are examples of this. No person can purchase the company, as their ownership is not legally available for sale, neither as shares nor as a single whole.
Intellectual property (IP) refers to a legal entitlement which sometimes attaches to theexpressed form of anidea, or to some otherintangible subject matter. This legal entitlement generally enables its holder to exerciseexclusive rights of use in relation to the subject matter of the IP. The term intellectual property reflects the idea that this subject matter is the product of themind or the intellect, and that IP rights may be protected at law in the same way as any other form ofproperty.
Intellectual propertylaws confer abundle ofexclusive rights in relation to the particular form or manner in which ideas or information are expressed or manifested, and not in relation to the ideas or concepts themselves (seeidea-expression divide). The term "intellectual property" denotes the specific legal rights which authors, inventors and other IP holders may hold and exercise, and not the intellectual work itself.
Intellectual property laws are designed to protect different forms of intangible subject matter, although in some cases there is a degree of overlap.
Patents, trademarks and designs fall into a particular subset of intellectual property known asindustrial property.
Like other forms of property, intellectual property (or rather the exclusive rights which subsist in the IP) can be transferred (with orwithout consideration) orlicensed to third parties. In somejurisdictions it is possible to use intellectual property ascollateral for aloan.
The basicpublic policy rationale for the protection of intellectual property is that IP laws facilitate and encourage disclosure ofinnovation into thepublic domain for thecommon good, by grantingauthors andinventors exclusive rights to exploit their works and invention for a limited period.
However, various schools of thought are critical of the very concept of intellectual property, and some characterise IP asintellectual protectionism. There is ongoing debate as to whether IP laws truly operate to confer the stated public benefits, and whether the protection they are said to provide is appropriate in the context of innovation derived from such things astraditional knowledge and folklore, and patents forsoftware andbusiness methods. Manifestations of thiscontroversy can be seen in the way differentjurisdictions decide whether to grant intellectual property protection in relation to subject matter of this kind, and the stark divide on issues of the role and scope of intellectual property laws.
The term "Slavery" is commonly understood to refer to chattel slavery.
The livinghuman body is, in modern societies, considered something which cannot be the property of anyone but theperson whose body it is. Its opposite, in which the person in the body does not own their body, ischattel slavery. Chattel slavery was defined as the absolute legal ownership of a person, including the legal right to buy and sell them. Persons who were so enslaved did not have thefreedom to direct their own actions, and their legal rights were either severely limited or nonexistent. TheAntebellum period in theUnited States is considered both the worst for the exploitation of chattel slaves, and also where the practice aroused such fierce opposition and support that it led to theAmerican Civil War.[15]
Chattel slavery is currently (2020) illegal in every country in the world. However, until the 19th century slavery in one form or another existed in most societies and was thought of as the normal state of things; slaves of whateverethnicity were consideredracially inferior.[16] Notwithstanding the illegality of enslavement,virtual slavery still exists in various forms today, although called by other names.[17]
The question of ownership reaches back to theancientphilosophers,Plato andAristotle, who held different opinions on the subject. Plato (428/427 BC – 348/347 BC) thought private property created divisive inequalities, while Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) thought private property enabled people to receive the full benefit of theirlabor. Private property can circumvent what is now referred to as the "tragedy of the commons" problem, where people tend to degrade common property more than they do private property. While Aristotle justified the existence of private ownership, he left two open questions
Inmodernwesternpolitics, some people believe that exclusive ownership of property underlies much social injustice, and facilitatestyranny andoppression on an individual and societal scale. Others consider the striving to achieve greater ownership of wealth as the driving factor behind humaninnovation and technological advancement and increasingstandards of living. Some support the latter view, believing that ownership is necessary forliberty itself.
Ownership society was a political slogan used byUnited States PresidentGeorge W. Bush to promote a series of policies aimed to increase the control of individual citizens overhealth care andsocial security payments and policies. Critics have claimed that slogan hid an agenda that sought to implementtax cuts and curtail the government's role in health care andretirement saving.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
