Talk:Property

Should be interesting
Tax laws vary, however as we get into tangible personal property vs intangible business property vs depreciable tangible business property it should be interesting. We'll discuss why corporations are persons with property rights, etc.

In my hometown the famous [Z-coil] issued a stock offering at $1 per share; I read the Prospectus through and through for a few investors. The only value in the idea (or business, or corporation) was in the "patent applied for", not in any inventory or distribution rights, etc. NOWHERE, and I mean NOWHERE did the Prospectus say investors would hold stock in the intangible patent rights. The patent evidently was held by the founder & corporate officer as his personal property, and was not being offered for sale. The lesson: Even with SEC full disclosure requirements, don't be fooled into thinking you are being offered to buy into a lucrative business. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say corporations are persons per se, even legally speaking. Organizations that can exercise free expression and the like, certainly. I'm not sure if by "persons with property rights" you mean "persons that can own property" because I've never heard ownership capabilities expressed as "with property rights" before. The Z-coil thing sounds pretty crafty. — Melab (Talk) 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Just noticed you added "trade names". How do they differ from trademarks? — Melab (Talk) 21:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Coca-Cola also owns the trade name Coke; Coke sued Howard Johnson's because customers asked for Coke and were served Howard Johnson's Cola. Now, Howard Johnson's (and any other vendor) is supposed to inform the buyer they don't have Coke, they only have Pepsi or Royal Crown or whatever. Selling them generic crap when they specificaly ask for Coke is illegal.
 * The Escalator Company never patented its trade name, hence Otis Elevator (the big boy back in the day when Escalator was an upstart) ran them out of business by selling their mechanical staircases as "Escalators". nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another intangible is trade secrets, Colonel Sanders secret recipe, for example. Employees with access to trade secrets oftentimes are required to sign non-competition clauses should their employment terminate. And trade secrets can be, for example, target markets and marketing strategies that competitors may be interested in, not just secret formulas or production methods. This is an area where labor law and property rights begin to overlap. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Intro
Don't you think defining what property is should be clear before derailing the subject with how it should be distributed? And a bad review can effect sales, so yes, reputation is basically the same thing as customer goodwill or a trade name (both economically quantifiable). The problem is proving damages, either malicious or negligent. I'm not a lawyer, but there's probably case law. And there's free speech rights for the press, but I'd guess some restaurants may boycott advertising for a publication that unfairly trashes competetors. There's also the risk of extortion from a publication that takes money from advertisers in exchange for a good review. But now we're getting more into contracts than property. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably, yeah. I'd say that's the first thing that should be done. To be honest, though, distribution wasn't even on my mind at the time I started writing this. I was interested in getting down the primary characteristics of the thing which seemed to me to be exclusivity and transferability. — Melab (Talk) 06:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"means of production"
Is an extraordinarily overbroad term. Does it mean (a) capital, which is the accumulated substance of either raw materials or materials which labor had been applied making it value added, or (b) is "means of production" labor itself, which creates value added wealth? nobs 13:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The means of productions are what is used by the workers to produce, for example in a mine, the mne itself would become the property of all the workers in the mine, and the tools would become individual properties of workers. I am not advocating this type of property, though. Diacelium (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good example. The raw materials below ground are unimproved capital. The process of digging shafts, chopping trees for support columns, etc. is not mining, per se. So a certain amount of capital and labor must be applied (or "invested") to bring the mining facility up to an improved, value added status which then would qualify as a "means of production", discounting any further labor applied. Who finances and pays for the labor and materials supplied to create the "means of production", since this enterprize strictly speaking is unrelated to an ongoing mining operation?
 * Granted, labor is the property of the labourer. But most labourers lease their labor for a wage or salary, which then under the terms of the employment contract limits their rights to compensation. The value added product remains the property of the owner of the unimproved capital or materials (employee stock ownership plans today partly help limit cash outflows of buisnesses while giving workers profit sharing benefits).
 * Bottomline: labor itself is property, not just materials and tangible property. The article needs a subsection on this point. nobs 14:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Mission?
I'm not clear on how this fits with our mission. .

I'm guessing there might be some crank ideas associated with property - but I'm not seeing them here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've stuck a template on it.
 * Perhaps there might be some sort of Freemen link but I can't think of anything what wouldn't be better covered there.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also entirely unsourced, and should be AFD'd shortly if not improved. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Once the Maximized Living AFD is closed, I'm gonna AFD this too unless it undergoes massive improvement. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The AFD came down to a 2-2 no consensus tie, so it will probably be renominated soon.Andrew5 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)