Imagi-Natives advice on:
0 0
Daily Needs
Mind Needs
 Learn Quotes (5012)
 Imagine Quotes (1915)
Plan Quotes (1665)
 Focus Quotes (2121)
Persist Quotes (5292)
 Evolve Quotes (1500)
Progress Quotes (290)
 General Quotes (295)
Body Needs
 Health Quotes (565)
 Exercise Quotes (413)
 Grooming Quotes (146)
 General Quotes (823)
Money Needs
 Income Quotes (238)
 Tax Quotes (526)
 Save Quotes (186)
 Invest Quotes (4012)
 Spend Quotes (319)
 General Quotes (1228)
Work Needs
 Customers Quotes (137)
 Service Quotes (1027)
 Leadership Quotes (3224)
 Team Quotes (494)
 Make Quotes (281)
 Sell Quotes (1439)
 General Quotes (1037)
Property Needs
 Clothing Quotes (144)
 Home Quotes (151)
 Garden/Nature Quotes (964)
 Conservation Quotes (282)
 General Quotes (345)
Food Needs
 Food Quotes (205)
 Drink Quotes (226)
 General Quotes (529)
Friends Needs
 Friends Quotes (778)
 Partners Quotes (615)
 Children Quotes (1675)
 Love Quotes (792)
 Conversation Quotes (4576)
 General Quotes (8697)
Fun Needs
 Gratitude Quotes (1696)
 Satisfaction Quotes (958)
 Anticipation Quotes (1256)
 Experiences Quotes (626)
 Music Quotes (280)
 Books Quotes (1298)
 TV/movies Quotes (177)
 Art Quotes (654)
 General Quotes (2654)

 Imagi-Natives Search 
 
Quote/Topic  Author
Contains all words in any orderContains the exact phraseContains at least one word
[ 50 Item(s) displayed from page 3 ]


Previous<<  1  2  4  5  6  7  Next Page>>

  Quotations - General  
[Quote No.35787] Need Area: Property > General
"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." - United Nations
Article 17 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.35788] Need Area: Property > General
"THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY: This development is a stark indicator of how far the concept of human rights has traveled since the United States became the first country to be founded on the idea that all men possess inalienable rights. The Virginia Declaration of Rights from 1776 (which inspired the U.S. Bill of Rights) declared property an inherent right of all men, and the right to property is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That the right to property was considered a precondition for individual rights is clear from James Madison’s essay on property from 1792, in which he wrote: 'Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.' But the emphasis on property as an inalienable human right was not particular to the American Founders at the time. The (first) French Declaration of the Rights of Man from 1789 states that 'property is an inviolable and sacred right.' Most constitutions of European liberal democracies include bills of rights —often inspired by the American and French ones — that protect the right to private property. The American Founders and the early European proponents of liberal democracy understood that the legal protection of private property against arbitrary interference creates a sphere of inviolability that is necessary for the enjoyments of other freedoms — such as privacy and the freedoms of expression, association, and religion. Were all housing, media outlets, organizations, and religious institutions state-owned, the government would be able to control most parts of its citizens’ lives, direct their productive capacities, and quell dissent. This classical understanding of the right to property primarily entails a 'negative' obligation that protects against arbitrary expropriation and regulation of private property. To the extent that the classical understanding of the right to property includes a positive obligation, it is limited to adopting the appropriate legal framework and protecting against the transgressions of third parties. The right to property provides opportunities and agency, but it does not guarantee results. It does not include a positive obligation to 'fulfill' the right to property through the compulsory transfer of property from one individual to another. Such a human rights obligation would make the protective sphere of the right to property largely illusory and would undermine, rather than strengthen, human dignity. Moreover, a positive duty to fulfill the right to property would make the application of this right wholly arbitrary and incompatible with the requirements of legal clarity and foreseeabilty on which respect for the rule of law depends. THE POSITIVE EFFECTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE WELL DOCUMENTED: The hostile approach to private property among human-rights defenders is a major hindrance toward securing respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the UDHR and the ICCPR, as well as for ameliorating poverty. The intimate relationship between the right to property and freedom and prosperity is well supported by various studies. All but one of the countries ranked in the top 10 of the 2010 International Property Rights Index also rank as 'free' (with the best possible score) in Freedom House’s 2010 'Freedom of the World' survey of civil and political freedom. Conversely, of the countries ranked in the bottom 10 of the IPRI, none rank as 'free.' Seven are ranked as 'partly free' (including countries with widespread human-rights violations such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Bangladesh). And three are ranked as 'not free' (Zimbabwe, Chad, and Cote D’Ivoire). All the countries in the top 10 of the IPRI are developed countries with a high GDP per capita. On average, countries in the top quintile of the IPRI enjoy a per capita income eight times higher than the countries in the bottom quintile of the IPRI. The link between poverty and the absence or insufficient protection of property rights is also made clear in the World Bank’s 2009 Country Performance and Institutional Assessments. Of the more than 70 developing countries surveyed in 2009, only five had property rights and rule-based governance scores of 4, and none scored higher (where 1 equals the lowest score and 6 equals the highest score). History provides many stark lessons on the importance of respecting private property and the potential disasters that follow from the systematic violation of this right. In apartheid South Africa, the right to property of millions of blacks was systematically violated through forced relocations intended to ensure white rule. The forced collectivization of land in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and in China during the Great Leap Forward of 1958–61 resulted in famines claiming millions of lives. UNDERMINING THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER: The Special Rapporteur on Food’s proposal to undermine private property rights for communal ownership is thus a recipe for both poverty and disaster. When the government becomes responsible for producing and distributing food, the result is not only less efficient production and distribution, but also a potentially lethal concentration of power over the lives of the many in the hands of the few. The government’s monopoly on food may thus become a weapon that can be deployed against recalcitrant parts of the population—as has been the case in Bashir’s Sudan, in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, and in North Korea during the famine in the 1990s (which may have caused millions of deaths). Dictators and their cronies rarely starve. In market economies with well-defined property rights, very few depend on the government for satisfying their basic needs, such as nutrition. Food is provided by private actors operating in the market who offer choice, quality, and affordability that would have been unimaginable in the old socialist countries where citizens had to queue in order to get the most basic foods. The conflict between economic, social, and cultural rights (ESC rights) and respect for private property can also be demonstrated with more recent examples. In 1999, Venezuela adopted a new constitution committed to 'social justice,' which includes a wide range of (justiciable) ESC rights that require government interference with property rights. Under Venezuela’s constitution, the widespread and arbitrary nationalization of supermarket chains, telecommunications, electricity, oil companies, and land ownership carried out by the Chávez administration is thus in conformity with the underlying principles of ESC rights, rather than a violation of property rights. Moreover, the continuous concentration of power in the executive, including the right to rule by decree, has eroded the freedom of Venezuelans, including the freedom of expression: media are required to air pro-government speeches and those critical of the government risk losing their licenses... Based on empirical evidence showing the strong link between property rights, freedom, and prosperity, there can be little doubt that strengthening classical private-property rights should be an urgent priority of the human-rights movement, as well as a cornerstone of human-rights policies of developed states, including the United States. For instance, developed countries and development nongovernmental organizations should help developing countries implement the legal and administrative framework necessary for making property rights effective..." - Cato Policy Report
May/June 2011
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.35895] Need Area: Property > General
"[Classical] Liberalism champions private property in the means of production because it expects a higher standard of living from such an economic organization, not because it wishes to help the owners." - Ludwig von Mises
[1881 – 1973], an Austrian-American economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern free-market libertarian movement and the Austrian School of economics.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.35954] Need Area: Property > General
"All the measures of the law should protect property [which includes a person's physical body] and punish plunder." - Frederic Bastiat
Famous French lawyer and legal theorist.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.36028] Need Area: Property > General
"Politically there is nothing more advantageous for a government than an attack on property rights, for it is always an easy matter to incite the masses [with less property] against the owners of [more] land and capital [through playing upon human envy without understanding and repecting the incentive value and inalienable right to private property that philosophically underpins the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... In spite of all persecutions, however, the institution of private property has survived. Neither the animosity of all governments, nor the hostile campaign waged against it by writers and moralists and by churches and religions, nor the resentment of the masses...has availed to abolish it." - Ludwig von Mises
[1881 – 1973], an Austrian-American economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern free-market libertarian movement and the Austrian School of economics.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.36177] Need Area: Property > General
"[There are several parts to this amendment, but note the issue about property, because the 'Founding Fathers' considered private property, starting from the ownership of self, to be the basis for all law, and even debated having 'The Declaration of Independence' state, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property, but settled on happiness as they believed this would encompass the pursuit of private property as well as cover all other pursuits, as all would be motivated by the desire for happiness. Here is the sequence... Original text of the Constitution...Preamble...Articles of the Constitution I ·II ·III ·IV ·V ·VI ·VII...Amendments to the Constitution...Bill of Rights I ·II ·III ·IV ·V VI ·VII ·VIII ·IX ·X...Subsequent Amendments...XI ·XII ·XIII ·XIV ·XV...XVI ·XVII ·XVIII ·XIX ·XX XXI ·XXII ·XXIII ·XXIV ·XXV XXVI ·XXVII . The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. ...Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights... " - wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.36503] Need Area: Property > General
"[Personal property is important for good management as even Jesus acknowledges:] The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man turns away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep." - Jesus
Bible (John 9:34). Jesus says this to the Pharisees.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.36511] Need Area: Property > General
"Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men [women] and things can not be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime. [Tourism and the ability to travel is a great gift. It is also important for intellectual, emotional, social and spiritual growth. It should be indulged as much as reasonably possible.]" - Mark Twain
Quote from his classic book, 'Innocents Abroad'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.36777] Need Area: Property > General
"The great end for which men [and women] entered into society was to preserve their property [which includes their own person - ie body]." - Lord Camden
Entick vs. Carrington [1765]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.37255] Need Area: Property > General
"Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property." - Frederic Bastiat
French lawyer and politician
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.37947] Need Area: Property > General
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own." - James Madison
National Gazette, March 1792.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.38042] Need Area: Property > General
"Enough is abundance to the wise!" - Euripides

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.38173] Need Area: Property > General
"Production and trade, the devices which build what we call civilizations, are erected on ideas of ownership [private property rights] rather than ideas of possession. It is in this sense that human society is constructed upon a moral base: a recognition of the difference between right and wrong. There must be an understanding of the sanctity of boundary, and a broad adherence to support of such sanctity, for a culture to endure or advance." - Robert LeFevre
'The Freeman', October 1979.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.38177] Need Area: Property > General
"Between what a man calls 'me' and what he simply calls 'mine' the line is difficult to draw. We feel and act about certain things that are ours very much as we feel and act about ourselves. [From this, humanity developed the concept of 'private property rights', which many cultures enshrined in their laws.]" - William James
American psychologist and philosopher.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.38236] Need Area: Property > General
"Not what we have But what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance." - John Petit-Senn

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.38487] Need Area: Property > General
"[When you travel to other places...] If you reject the food, ignore the customs, fear the religion, and avoid the people, you might better stay home." - James A. Michener
(1907 - 1997)
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.38499] Need Area: Property > General
"[Travel:] My favorite thing is to go where I've never been." - Diane Arbus

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.38746] Need Area: Property > General
"A thing is worth what it can do for you, not what you choose to pay for it." - John Ruskin

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.40389] Need Area: Property > General
"[Individualism and authenticity: The latest] Fashion is what you adopt when you don't know who you are." - Quentin Crisp

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.40405] Need Area: Property > General
"What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. If all the means of production were vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of 'society' as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us." - Friedrich A. Hayek
Famous economist who won Nobel Prize for economics in 1974. Quote from his book, 'The Road to Serfdom', 1944.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.40484] Need Area: Property > General
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." - Thomas Jefferson
(1743 – 1826), American Founding Father who was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809). The quote is from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval in 1816.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.40802] Need Area: Property > General
"Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property [competition and free markets rather than through public ownership, political largesse and government bureaucracy]. " - Milton Friedman
winner Nobel Prize for Economics, 1976
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41004] Need Area: Property > General
"A government that sets out [in order to ingratiate itself paternally and thereby hold on to power] to abolish market prices is inevitably driven toward the abolition of private property; it has to recognize that there is no middle way between the system of private property in the means of production combined with free contract, and the system of common ownership of the means of production, or socialism. It is gradually forced toward [a less free society with] compulsory production, universal obligation to labor, rationing of consumption, and, finally, official regulation of the whole of production and consumption!" - Ludwig von Mises
[1881 – 1973], an Austrian-American economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern free-market libertarian movement and the Austrian School of economics. Refer the website [ mises.org ].
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41006] Need Area: Property > General
"Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state. It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will. It allows other forces to arise side by side with and in opposition to political power." - Ludwig von Mises
[1881 – 1973], an Austrian-American economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern free-market libertarian movement and the Austrian School of economics. Refer the website [ mises.org ].
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41007] Need Area: Property > General
"The truth is that every infringement of property rights and every restriction of free enterprise impairs the productivity of labor [individual freedom and happiness]." - Ludwig von Mises
[1881 – 1973], an Austrian-American economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern free-market libertarian movement and the Austrian School of economics. Refer the website [ mises.org ].
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41160] Need Area: Property > General
"Travel and change of place impart new vigor to the mind." - Seneca

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41247] Need Area: Property > General
"Like you, I consider the right to property to consist in the freedom to dispose first on one’s person, then of one’s labor, and finally, of the products of one’s labor — which proves, incidentally, that, from a certain point of view, freedom and the right to property are indistinguishable from each other." - Frederic Bastiat
'Protectionism and Communism',1849.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41298] Need Area: Property > General
"Know the glorious, Keep to the lowly, And be the Fountain of the World. To be the Fountain of the World is To live the abundant life of Virtue, And to return again to Primal Simplicity." - Lao-tzu
Tao Te Ching, 28
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41321] Need Area: Property > General
"Because [each] man [and woman] has a right to life he [or she] has a right to defend that life. Without the right to self-defence the right to life is a meaningless phrase. If a man [or woman] has a right to defend his [or her] life against aggression he [or she] also has a right to defend all his [or her] possessions because these possessions are the results of his [or her] investment of time and energy, in other words his [or her] investment of parts of his [or her] life and are thus extensions of that life. " - Linda and Morris Tannehill
Quote from their book, ‘The Market For Liberty’, Chapter 8: Protection of Life and Property. [http://www.podiobooks.com/title/the-market-for-liberty/feed ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41322] Need Area: Property > General
"Because [each] man [and woman] has a[n unalienable] right to life he [or she] has a right to defend that life. Without the right to self-defence the right to life is a meaningless phrase. If a man [or woman] has a right to defend his [or her] life against aggression he [or she] also has a[n unalienable] right to defend all his [or her] possessions [against force, the threat of force - coercion, or fraud] because these possessions are the results of his [or her] investment of time and energy, in other words his [or her] investment of parts of his [or her] life and are thus extensions of that life." - Linda and Morris Tannehill
Quote from their book, ‘The Market For Liberty’, Chapter 8: Protection of Life and Property. [http://www.podiobooks.com/title/the-market-for-liberty/feed ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41357] Need Area: Property > General
" ‘The Right to Property in Global Human Rights Law’: 'Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.’ So declares article 17 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]. However, the right to property was seen as extremely controversial by several of the states that drafted the UDHR. The controversy reflected the ideological divide of the Cold War, between democratic and capitalist countries on one side, and non-democratic socialist states, as well as certain developing states, on the other. Unfortunately, suspicions about private property as a fundamental human right survive to this day, to the detriment of the coherence of human rights as a guiding political concept, and of fundamental freedoms and prosperity. The first draft of the UDHR, prepared by the Canadian lawyer (and socialist) John Humphrey, prioritized collective ownership over individual property rights and only referred to the right to ‘own personal property.’ According to Humphrey's draft, ownership of industrial, commercial, or other profit-making enterprises was to be governed by national law — and the state could regulate the acquisition and use of private property. This wording was inspired and supported by communist and Latin American countries whose constitutions only protected personal property and left the state free to regulate the means of production. Later drafts — and the final version — accommodated Western objections. But whereas Western states succeeded in obtaining a protection of private property in the legally non-binding UDHR, they failed in this endeavor when the General Assembly adopted the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] in 1966. A number of subsequent ‘core’ international human rights conventions include clauses that prohibit discrimination on the basis of property or in relation to property based on a person's sex, race, religion, or similar categories. But none of these conventions include a free-standing right to private property. Even the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR], adopted by Western liberal democracies in 1950, added the right to property (defined rather weakly as the peaceful enjoyment of possessions) only as an additional protocol. The ECHR affords some protection against expropriation, but it allows states a very wide ‘margin of appreciation.’ Both the American Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights protect private property, but as is the case with the ECHR, their protections against expropriation and regulatory takings are weak. THE INTERPRETATION OF COURTS AND ACADEMICS: Despite the end of the Cold War and the collapse of socialism, much of mainstream human rights thinking is still skeptical of — if not outright hostile to — the notion of private property as a human right in its classical sense of protecting against expropriation and intrusive regulation. In fact, leading human rights scholars have reinterpreted the right to property to encompass an entitlement to be provided property by government through redistribution. The following quote is from the widely cited ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Textbook’: ‘In order for the right to property to be fulfilled and for everyone to really enjoy the right to property, every individual should enjoy a certain minimum of property needed for living a life in dignity, including social security and social assistance.’ The so-called positive obligation to fulfill the right to property was reiterated in a 2010 ‘Legal Opinion on the Right to Property from a Human Rights Perspective,’ authored by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and cited in a report from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, as noted below. This line of argument is not limited to academics, but has also been internalized by human rights officials, organizations, and courts. In a report from October 2010, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food asserted that the unequal distribution of land threatens the right to food. As a remedy, the Special Rapporteur proposed that states should encourage ‘communal ownership systems’ rather than focus on ‘strengthening the rights of landowners’ through a ‘Western concept of property rights.’ And according to the Special Rapporteur, realizing the right to food may also entail an obligation on the state to secure access to land ‘through redistributive programmes that may in turn result in restrictions on others' right to property.’ The UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has already criticized several states for privatizing land, housing, health care, and water — suggesting that such steps may lead to violations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which, among others, seeks to protect the right to work, social security, and an adequate standard of living. In a case from 2009, the European Court of Human Rights interpreted the right to property as including pre-retirement benefits (the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has adopted a comparable interpretation of the right to property in the American Convention). This prompted a scathing comment from the president of the Belgian Constitutional Court to the effect that the judges in Strasbourg had achieved something that not even Karl Marx had been able to do. The European Court of Human Rights determined that full compensation based on market value would normally be required for expropriations to comply with the ECHR. However, compensations of less than the full market value may be sufficient if the taking of property pursues ‘measures of economic reform’ or ‘social justice.’ These categories are obviously very broad and lack any meaningful definition, conferring a worrying degree of discretion on governments while diluting the protection of property owners from arbitrary, ideologically justified seizures. THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY: This development is a stark indicator of how far the concept of human rights has traveled since the United States became the first country to be founded on the idea that all men possess inalienable rights. The Virginia Declaration of Rights from 1776 (which inspired the U.S. Bill of Rights) declared property an inherent right of all men, and the right to property is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That the right to property was considered a precondition for individual rights is clear from James Madison's essay on property from 1792, in which he wrote: ‘Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.’ But the emphasis on property as an inalienable human right was not particular to the American Founders at the time. The (first) French Declaration of the Rights of Man from 1789 states that ‘property is an inviolable and sacred right.’ Most constitutions of European liberal democracies include bills of rights — often inspired by the American and French ones — that protect the right to private property. The American Founders and the early European proponents of liberal democracy understood that the legal protection of private property against arbitrary interference creates a sphere of inviolability that is necessary for the enjoyments of other freedoms — such as privacy and the freedoms of expression, association, and religion. Were all housing, media outlets, organizations, and religious institutions state-owned, the government would be able to control most parts of its citizens' lives, direct their productive capacities, and quell dissent. This classical understanding of the right to property primarily entails a ‘negative’ obligation that protects against arbitrary expropriation and regulation of private property. To the extent that the classical understanding of the right to property includes a positive obligation, it is limited to adopting the appropriate legal framework and protecting against the transgressions of third parties. The right to property provides opportunities and agency, but it does not guarantee results. It does not include a positive obligation to ‘fulfill’ the right to property through the compulsory transfer of property from one individual to another. Such a human rights obligation would make the protective sphere of the right to property largely illusory and would undermine, rather than strengthen, human dignity. Moreover, a positive duty to fulfill the right to property would make the application of this right wholly arbitrary and incompatible with the requirements of legal clarity and foreseeabilty on which respect for the rule of law depends. THE POSITIVE EFFECTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE WELL DOCUMENTED: The hostile approach to private property among human-rights defenders is a major hindrance toward securing respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the UDHR and the ICCPR, as well as for ameliorating poverty. The intimate relationship between the right to property and freedom and prosperity is well supported by various studies. All but one of the countries ranked in the top 10 of the 2010 International Property Rights Index [IPPR] also rank as ‘free’ (with the best possible score) in Freedom House's 2010 ‘Freedom of the World’ survey of civil and political freedom. Conversely, of the countries ranked in the bottom 10 of the IPRI, none rank as ‘free.’ Seven are ranked as ‘partly free’ (including countries with widespread human-rights violations such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Bangladesh). And three are ranked as ‘not free’ (Zimbabwe, Chad, and Cote D'Ivoire). All the countries in the top 10 of the IPRI are developed countries with a high GDP per capita. On average, countries in the top quintile of the IPRI enjoy a per capita income eight times higher than the countries in the bottom quintile of the IPRI. The link between poverty and the absence or insufficient protection of property rights is also made clear in the World Bank's 2009 Country Performance and Institutional Assessments. Of the more than 70 developing countries surveyed in 2009, only five had property rights and rule-based governance scores of 4, and none scored higher (where 1 equals the lowest score and 6 equals the highest score). History provides many stark lessons on the importance of respecting private property and the potential disasters that follow from the systematic violation of this right. In apartheid South Africa, the right to property of millions of blacks was systematically violated through forced relocations intended to ensure white rule. The forced collectivization of land in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and in China during the Great Leap Forward of 1958–61 resulted in famines claiming millions of lives. UNDERMINING THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER: The Special Rapporteur on Food's proposal to undermine private property rights for communal ownership is thus a recipe for both poverty and disaster. When the government becomes responsible for producing and distributing food, the result is not only less efficient production and distribution, but also a potentially lethal concentration of power over the lives of the many in the hands of the few. The government's monopoly on food may thus become a weapon that can be deployed against recalcitrant parts of the population — as has been the case in Bashir's Sudan, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and in North Korea during the famine in the 1990s (which may have caused millions of deaths). Dictators and their cronies rarely starve. In market economies with well-defined property rights, very few depend on the government for satisfying their basic needs, such as nutrition. Food is provided by private actors operating in the market who offer choice, quality, and affordability that would have been unimaginable in the old socialist countries where citizens had to queue in order to get the most basic foods. The conflict between economic, social, and cultural rights (ESC rights) and respect for private property can also be demonstrated with more recent examples. In 1999, Venezuela adopted a new constitution committed to ‘social justice,’ which includes a wide range of (justiciable) ESC rights that require government interference with property rights. Under Venezuela's constitution, the widespread and arbitrary nationalization of supermarket chains, telecommunications, electricity, oil companies, and land ownership carried out by the Chávez administration is thus in conformity with the underlying principles of ESC rights, rather than a violation of property rights. Moreover, the continuous concentration of power in the executive, including the right to rule by decree, has eroded the freedom of Venezuelans, including the freedom of expression: media are required to air pro-government speeches and those critical of the government risk losing their licenses. The situation in Venezuela is approaching the eerie scenario envisaged by an expert working group of UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] when debating how to realize the ESC rights proclaimed in the UDHR: ‘If the new declaration of the rights of man is to include provision for social services, for maintenance in childhood, in old age, in incapacity or in unemployment, it becomes clear that no society can guarantee the enjoyment of such rights unless it in turn has the right to call upon and direct the productive capacities of the individuals enjoying them.’ The danger of letting the state be solely responsible for achieving ESC rights was not lost on a majority of the Commission on Human Rights when they drafted what would become the ICESCR [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]. In 1951, a minority proposed that the responsibility for achieving the rights in the ICESCR should rest solely with the state. This was rejected by a majority of the Commission, which ‘fully recognized the importance of private as well as governmental action for the achievement of these rights.’ Unfortunately, the recognition of the importance of the private sector, and thus for private property, seems lost on current mainstream human-rights thinkers. STRENGTHENING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY: While human-rights experts and organs of the UN are often hostile to private property in its classical sense, the fundamental importance of this right has been recognized by other authorities. In 2008, the Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor, a working group under the UNDP [United Nations Development Programme] co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto, a winner of the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, published a report entitled ‘Making the Law Work for Everyone.’ The report concludes that the right to property must be understood as a ‘fundamental human right’ essential for the integrity of the individual. The report adopts a classical understanding of the right to property as intrinsically linked to individual freedom, stating that ‘the body and mind are the first and most immediate property of persons.’ In addition, the report stresses the importance of property rights for economic development: ‘In the absence of generalized and equitable property rights systems much of economic activity does not develop its full potential even for powerful actors; there is a high likelihood of social unrest; there may be under-accumulation of human capital resulting in a low-quality labor force, and little demand for credit resulting in underdeveloped financial institutions and ultimately hindered growth. There is also less foreign investment or flight of capital when property rights are not guaranteed.’ The report also points to the lack of property rights as a factor in civil armed conflict around the world. Importantly, the report shows that limiting state ownership of land and resources is essential in order to effectively promote and implement property rights, since a government's large-scale ownership of land provides it with the ability to arbitrarily impose planning restrictions and expropriate — without compensation — to the detriment of tenure security. The Commission's thorough report maps out an entirely different understanding of property rights and their importance than the above-mentioned report by the Special Rapporteur for Food and the CESCR [Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights], which effectively recommends weakening property rights. Based on empirical evidence showing the strong link between property rights, freedom, and prosperity, there can be little doubt that strengthening classical private-property rights should be an urgent priority of the human-rights movement, as well as a cornerstone of human-rights policies of developed states, including the United States. For instance, developed countries and development nongovernmental organizations should help developing countries implement the legal and administrative framework necessary for making property rights effective, rather than focusing on the redistributive element of ESC rights, which undermines the right to property. Such a development strategy has recently been initiated by the Danish government. The new strategy, ‘Freedom from Poverty — Freedom to Change,’ emphasizes the role of ‘economic growth based on free markets and private property benefiting the poor’ as well as ‘respect for human rights.’ It is indisputable that there are obvious and systemic shortcomings in the UN's human rights protection system — particularly in those organs that are dominated by member states such as the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. Despite these shortcomings, it should be made a priority to remedy the fatal flaw of the ICCPR by adopting an optional protocol with a robust protection of the right to property against arbitrary expropriation and regulatory takings. For countries with strong protection of property rights, such as the United States, and most Western countries, the proposed optional protocol would most likely not require substantial changes of national legislation (even if the United States, has not incorporated the ICCPR into national law and does not recognize individual complaints to the Human Rights Committee). However, an optional protocol could be a useful tool in promoting the right to property as a human right, particularly in poor developing countries with questionable human-rights records. An optional protocol on the right to property would also counterbalance the recently adopted optional protocol to the ICESCR, which allows individuals to complain that their ESC rights have been violated. That protocol is likely to result in decisions that further undermine property rights by reason of the so-called duty to fulfill, which, as discussed above, involves compulsory redistribution of property. This development has potentially grave consequences for the right to private property around the world as NGOs, international organizations, governments, and courts are influenced by contemporary human-rights standards. Even in the United States, where the reference to international human-rights conventions is very limited at the federal court level, some courts in states such as New Hampshire, West Virginia, and California have referred to international human rights standards — including the ICESCR and the UDHR — when deciding claims related to adoption, education, and general relief. An optional protocol affording private property human rights protection would create a line of defense against expropriations based on human-rights claims under the ICESCR [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]. Moreover, the obligations arising out of the ICESCR are much less well defined than those under the ICCPR [Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. The rights in the ICESCR have to be achieved progressively over time, and complaints generally have to show a ‘clear disadvantage’ in order to be admissible. States have a wide margin of discretion in their implementation based on a standard of ‘reasonableness,’ taking into account a ‘range of possible policy measures.’ When it comes to the ICCPR, on the other hand, states are under an immediate obligation to ‘respect and to ensure’ the rights therein, as well as provide an effective remedy for their violation. Taking into account the clear and immediate nature of the obligations under the ICCPR, it would be possible to argue that from the outset the right to property under ICCPR trumps claims involving the infringements of private property arising out of the ICESCR. Mainstream human-rights thinking is increasingly hostile to the protection of private property and receptive to the ideas of ESC [economic, social, and cultural] rights that often conflict with the right to property. Accordingly, those who believe that human rights are essential for freedom and prosperity and that the right to property is an essential human right should urgently focus their efforts on strengthening the protection of the right to property under international human rights law." - Jacob Mchangama
Jacob Mchangama is the director of legal affairs at the Danish Center for Political Studies and external lecturer on international human-rights law at the University of Copenhagen. ‘The Right to Property in Global Human Rights Law’ article in the ‘Cato Policy Report’, May/June 2011. [http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v33n3/cprv33n3-1.html ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41358] Need Area: Property > General
"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. [Thieves only respect their own property. They do not respect the right of property ownership of others.]" - G. K. Chesterton
(1874 - 1936), English born Gabonese critic, essayist, novelist and poet.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41359] Need Area: Property > General
"One common form of stealing, theft of value - property or money, which does not involve force or even the threat of force, is that of fraud. It does however involve lying. For example the act of 'borrowing' a thing or money with no intention of ever returning the item or repaying the loan, regardless of what you promise in words or writing. Another form of fraud is 'selling' a service or product which is either not delivered or is delivered but is not what the person thought they were buying or exchanging value for." - Anonymous

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41372] Need Area: Property > General
"Property rights are founded on the principle that we are either born into slavery, where someone else owns us (and is responsible for our upkeep and owns what we create), or we are born free and we own ourselves. If we own our bodies then we own the effects of our bodies – our actions and therefore what our bodies create both good and bad. In this way we are responsible for our own actions, which is the basis for all responsibility, accountability and therefore all cause and effect in law. If you do not own yourself and therefore your actions then you cannot be held morally and legally responsible for your actions and punishment is immoral. By the same token if you own yourself and therefore your actions then you are responsible for and own any good and the rewards of that good, which you create, which is the basis of property ownership rights, income and profit, as well as the incentive to greater productivity, quality and service, that is the basis of the perceived benefits of free market capitalism." - Ben O’Grady
Founder and Chief Executive Officer of www.imagi-natives.com
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41373] Need Area: Property > General
"The right to have and to hold private property is not to be confused with the recovery of stolen property. If someone steals your car, it is still — by this moral right — your car rather than his; and for you to repossess it is merely to bring its presence back into harmony with its ownership. The same reasoning applies to the recovery of equivalent value if the stolen item itself is no longer returnable; and it applies to the recompense for damage done to one’s own property by trespass or other willful destruction of private property. These means of protecting the possession of private property, and its use, are part of the mechanisms used to protect the moral right to private property." - F.A. Harper
He was the founder of the Institute for Humane Studies. This article originally appeared in volume 1 of 'Essays on Liberty', published in 1952 by The Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. Reprinted September 2000 as ‘Morals and the Welfare State’, Part 2. [http://www.fff.org/freedom/1000f.asp ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41374] Need Area: Property > General
"We are all born free with the right to own our own bodies - the paramount human property right - and therefore the product of that body’s efforts and luck [i.e. unique ideas, property, capital] or the products of others, so long as it is exchanged or given, freely and without fraud. Therefore the essential role of unalienable, human, birth-rights (non-negotiable, individual entitlements), the law and governments is to ensure that that initial liberty, given by nature - and if religious, by our creator, endures throughout our lives, regardless of unselfish or selfish attempts, by individuals or groups – even majorities in democracies, to circumvent them." - Ben O'Grady
Founder and Chief Executive Officer of www.imagi-natives.com
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41378] Need Area: Property > General
"Definition of 'Socialism': An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production [No private property ownership rights]. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. China, Vietnam and Cuba are examples of modern-day socialist societies. Twentieth-century socialist governments were overthrown in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the U.S.S.R. ... While capitalism is based on a price system, profit and loss, and private property rights, socialism is based on bureaucratic central planning and collective ownership. Proponents of socialism believe that it creates equality and provides economic security and that capitalism is an inferior system that exploits workers for the benefit of a small, wealthy class. Critics of socialism believe that it is based on faulty principles and ignores human nature and the role of incentives in economic transactions." - investopedia.com
[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp#axzz1uUnin9WO ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41380] Need Area: Property > General
"[It is an important responsibility to have the right to vote in a democracy and therefore it is important for each voter to know at least a little about each political philosophy so that each individual's vote can mean something. The web is a good way to get a range of ideas and facts. Here is a very brief introduction to Communism which I took off the internet. Communism is one of the political philosophies that is based on statism, where government, rather than each individual, has the rights, powers and responsibilities.] Communism facts: While we all know that Russia was a member state of the communist former Soviet Union, what else have we learned about this particular area of politics? How did it originate and why was it so widely embraced in the 20th century? If you've ever wanted to learn more about communism then please read on. -The true ideal: How do you encapsulate the theory of Communism in a few words? It is almost impossible when you consider how the system was managed in the Soviet Union but the basic principle suggests that all people are equal and are working for the good of society as a whole and that all property is held in common instead of being owned by individuals or corporations [- there are no private property rights]. When we think of Communism we are aware of the quote 'all property is theft' and that pertains to the notion that all property is held by society as a whole. -Early practise: While the term 'Communism' wasn't coined for many centuries, some of its essential elements have been practised throughout human history, including in the middle ages with the use of communal fields in mediaeval times. In fact, some theorists claim that Communism has its roots in Ancient Greece and the Golden Age which held a concept of bliss and harmony for its entire population. -Marx and Engels: It's a generally held belief that Karl Marx was the father of modern Communism and together with Friedrich Engels, he developed his theory which became known as Marxism. Marx was a German, born in 1818 and he met his fellow philosopher Engels in 1844. Both shared a common hatred towards capitalist society and together they began working on a common manifesto. -Roots in Belgium: Belgium is an unlikely setting for Communist roots but both Marx and Engels moved there because the country allowed greater freedom of expression. In fact, Marx had been deported from France over his views. While in Belgium, the two men began to collaborate and in 1848, the Communist Manifesto was born. -The movement takes shape: Many left wing movements began to adopt the Marxist ideals towards the end of the 19th century and the Communist political system began to take shape. Its early pockets of support were across Europe and in some unlikely areas such as France and Germany. It wasn't until the Russian revolution however, that the political movement gained a foothold in government. -1917: At the start of the 20th century, Russia was an autocracy run by the Tsar who presided over a country with widespread poverty and oppression. This was a perfect breeding ground for Communism and so it proved. In 1917, the people finally rose up against the Royal Family and a communist government was installed that lasted until the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's. -Communism Today: While Communist governments have fallen across Eastern Europe, the party still has support in Russia although its vote count is some way behind the existing government. While it's not impossible for Communism to return in Russia, it seems unlikely. There are also communist parties active in many other countries, including some where they either are the government, or form part of a coalition government. Countries with communist governments today include China, North Korea and (in the only democratically elected communist government) Moldova." - Matt Harris
Matt has been working as a freelance writer for over twenty years, and has been interested in Russian history and culture since first studying the country at school. Article from the all-things-Russia blog, 'Siberian Light' September 8, 2011 [http://siberianlight.net/communism-facts/ ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41381] Need Area: Property > General
"Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. [This is one of the first statements about human property rights which in so doing clearly established individual freedom while negating slavery. This concept underpins the unalienable, human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness later enshrined in the United States Declaration of Independence.]" - John Locke
(1632 – 1704), widely known as the Father of Classical Liberalism, was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory. His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence. This quote is from his, 'The Second Treatise On Civil Government'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41385] Need Area: Property > General
"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in ‘society as a whole,’ i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia — or partial, as in England." - Ayn Rand
(1905 – 1982), born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, she was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels ‘The Fountainhead’ and ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings. She is a major influence among libertarians and American conservatives. Quote from her essay ‘The Monument Builders', in her book, 'The Virtue of Selfishness'. [refer http://aynrandlexicon.com/ ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41386] Need Area: Property > General
"When you consider socialism [which does not believe in individual property rights], do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights.’ No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the ‘right’ to ‘redistribute’ the wealth produced by others is claiming the ‘right’ to treat human beings as chattel." - Ayn Rand
(1905 – 1982), born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, she was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels ‘The Fountainhead’ and ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings. She is a major influence among libertarians and American conservatives. Quote from her essay, ‘The Monument Builders’, in her book, ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’. [refer http://aynrandlexicon.com/ ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41387] Need Area: Property > General
"Property Rights: One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights. For decades social critics in the United States and throughout the Western world have complained that ‘property’ rights too often take precedence over ‘human’ rights, with the result that people are treated unequally and have unequal opportunities. Inequality exists in any society. But the purported conflict between property rights and human rights is a mirage. Property rights are human rights. The definition, allocation, and protection of property rights comprise one of the most complex and difficult sets of issues that any society has to resolve, but one that must be resolved in some fashion. For the most part, social critics of ‘property’ rights do not want to abolish those rights. Rather, they want to transfer them from private ownership to government ownership. Some transfers to public ownership (or control, which is similar) make an economy more effective. Others make it less effective. The worst outcome by far occurs when property rights really are abolished (see tragedy of the commons). A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. Society approves the uses selected by the holder of the property right with governmental administered force and with social ostracism. If the resource is owned by the government, the agent who determines its use has to operate under a set of rules determined, in the United States, by Congress or by executive agencies it has charged with that role. Private property rights have two other attributes in addition to determining the use of a resource. One is the exclusive right to the services of the resource. Thus, for example, the owner of an apartment with complete property rights to the apartment has the right to determine whether to rent it out and, if so, which tenant to rent to; to live in it himself; or to use it in any other peaceful way. That is the right to determine the use. If the owner rents out the apartment, he also has the right to all the rental income from the property. That is the right to the services of the resources (the rent). Finally, a private property right includes the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). If I am not allowed to buy some rights from you and you therefore are not allowed to sell rights to me, private property rights are reduced. Thus, the three basic elements of private property are (1) exclusivity of rights to choose the use of a resource, (2) exclusivity of rights to the services of a resource, and (3) rights to exchange the resource at mutually agreeable terms. The U.S. Supreme Court has vacillated about this third aspect of property rights. But no matter what words the justices use to rationalize such decisions, the fact is that such limitations as price controls and restrictions on the right to sell at mutually agreeable terms are reductions of private property rights. Many economists (myself included) believe that most such restrictions on property rights are detrimental to society. Here are some of the reasons why. Under a private property system the market values of property reflect the preferences and demands of the rest of society. No matter who the owner is, the use of the resource is influenced by what the rest of the public thinks is the most valuable use. The reason is that an owner who chooses some other use must forsake that highest-valued use—and the price others would pay him for the resource or for the use of it. This creates an interesting paradox: although property is called ‘private,’ private decisions are based on public, or social, evaluation. The fundamental purpose of property rights, and their fundamental accomplishment, is that they eliminate destructive competition for control of economic resources. Well-defined and well-protected property rights replace competition by violence with competition by peaceful means. The extent and degree of private property rights fundamentally affect the ways people compete for control of resources. With more complete private property rights, market exchange values become more influential. The personal status and personal attributes of people competing for a resource matter less because their influence can be offset by adjusting the price... The restriction on private property rights reduces competition based on monetary exchanges for goods and services and increases competition based on personal characteristics. More generally, weakening private property rights increases the role of personal characteristics in inducing sellers to discriminate among competing buyers and buyers to discriminate among sellers. The two extremes in weakened private property rights are socialism and ‘commonly owned’ resources. Under socialism, government agents—those whom the government assigns—exercise control over resources. The rights of these agents to make decisions about the property they control are highly restricted. People who think they can put the resources to more valuable uses cannot do so by purchasing the rights because the rights are not for sale at any price. Because socialist managers do not gain when the values of the resources they manage increase, and do not lose when the values fall, they have little incentive to heed changes in market-revealed values. The uses of resources are therefore more influenced by the personal characteristics and features of the officials who control them. Consider the socialist manager of a collective farm under the old Soviet communist system. By working every night for one week, he could have made, say, one million rubles of additional profit for the farm by arranging to transport the farm’s wheat to Moscow before it rotted. But because neither the manager nor those who worked on the farm were entitled to keep even a portion of this additional profit, the manager was more likely than the manager of a capitalist farm to go home early and let the crops rot. Similarly, common ownership of resources—whether in the former Soviet Union or in the United States—gives no one a strong incentive to preserve the resource. A fishery that no one owns, for example, will be overfished. The reason is that a fisherman who throws back small fish to wait until they grow is unlikely to get any benefit from his waiting. Instead, some other fisherman will catch the fish. The same holds true for other common resources whether they be herds of buffalo, oil in the ground, or clean air. All will be overused. Indeed, a main reason for the spectacular failure of the 1980s and early 1990s economic reforms in the former Soviet Union is that resources were shifted from ownership by government to de facto common ownership. How? By making the Soviet government’s revenues de facto into a common resource. Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs, who advised the Soviet government, once pointed out that when Soviet managers of socialist enterprises were allowed to open their own businesses but still were left as managers of the government’s businesses, they siphoned out the profits of the government’s business into their private corporations. Thousands of managers doing this caused a large budget deficit for the Soviet government. In this case the resource that no manager had an incentive to conserve was the Soviet government’s revenues. Similarly, improperly set premiums for U.S. deposit insurance gave banks and S&Ls (see savings and loan crisis) an incentive to make excessively risky loans and to treat the deposit insurance fund as a ‘common’ resource. Private property rights to a resource need not be held by a single person. They can be shared, with each person sharing in a specified fraction of the market value while decisions about uses are made in whatever process the sharing group deems desirable. A major example of such shared property rights is the corporation. In a limited liability corporation, shares are specified and the rights to decide how to use the corporation’s resources are delegated to its management. Each shareholder has the unrestrained right to sell his or her share. Limited liability insulates each shareholder’s wealth from the liabilities of other shareholders, and thereby facilitates anonymous sale and purchase of shares. In other types of enterprises, especially where each member’s wealth will become uniquely dependent on each other member’s behavior, property rights in the group endeavor are usually salable only if existing members approve of the buyer. This is typical for what are often called joint ventures, ‘mutuals,’ and partnerships. While more complete property rights are preferable to less complete rights, any system of property rights entails considerable complexity and many issues that are difficult to resolve. If I operate a factory that emits smoke, foul smells, or airborne acids over your land, am I using your land without your permission? This is difficult to answer. The cost of establishing private property rights—so that I could pay you a mutually agreeable price to pollute your air—may be too high. Air, underground water, and electromagnetic radiation, for example, are expensive to monitor and control. Therefore, a person does not effectively have enforceable private property rights to the quality and condition of some parcel of air. The inability to cost-effectively monitor and police uses of your resources means ‘your’ property rights over ‘your’ land are not as extensive and strong as they are over some other resources such as furniture, shoes, or automobiles. When private property rights are unavailable or too costly to establish and enforce, substitute means of control are sought. Government authority, expressed by government agents, is one very common such means. Hence the creation of environmental laws. Depending on circumstances, certain actions may be considered invasions of privacy, trespass, or torts. If I seek refuge and safety for my boat at your dock during a sudden severe storm on a lake, have I invaded ‘your’ property rights, or do your rights not include the right to prevent that use? The complexities and varieties of circumstances render impossible a bright-line definition of a person’s set of property rights with respect to resources. Similarly, the set of resources over which property rights may be held is not well defined and demarcated. Ideas, melodies, and procedures, for example, are almost costless to replicate explicitly (near-zero cost of production) and implicitly (no forsaken other uses of the inputs). As a result, they typically are not protected as private property except for a fixed term of years under a patent or copyright. Private property rights are not absolute. The rule against the ‘dead hand,’ or perpetuities, is an example. I cannot specify how resources that I own will be used in the indefinitely distant future. Under our legal system, I can specify the use only for a limited number of years after my death or the deaths of currently living people. I cannot insulate a resource’s use from the influence of market values of all future generations. Society recognizes market prices as measures of the relative desirability of resource uses. Only to the extent that rights are salable are those values most fully revealed. Accompanying and conflicting with the desire to secure private property rights for oneself is the desire to acquire more wealth by ‘taking’ from others. This is done by military conquest and by forcible reallocation of rights to resources (also known as stealing). But such coercion is antithetical to—rather than characteristic of—a system of private property rights. Forcible reallocation means that the existing rights have not been adequately protected. Private property rights do not conflict with human rights. They are human rights. Private property rights are the rights of humans to use specified goods and to exchange them. Any restraint on private property rights shifts the balance of power from impersonal attributes toward personal attributes and toward behavior that political authorities approve. That is a fundamental reason for preference of a system of strong private property rights: private property rights protect individual liberty." - Armen A. Alchian
He is an emeritus professor of economics at the University of California, Los Angeles. Most of his major scientific contributions are in the economics of property rights. [http://econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41392] Need Area: Property > General
"Private property began the instant somebody had a mind of his own." - e. e. cummings
E.E. (Edward. E.) Cummings
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41393] Need Area: Property > General
"Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing." - Calvin Coolidge
(1872 – 1933), John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. was a Republican lawyer, before becoming a Mayor, then Vice-President and ultimately the 30th President of the United States, between 1923 and 1929.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41394] Need Area: Property > General
"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property." - John Locke
English philosopher
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41388] Need Area: Property > General
"Property Rights for ‘Sesame Street’ -- Ever seen two children quarreling over a toy? Such squabbles had been commonplace in Katherine Hussman Klemp’s household. But in the Sesame Street Parent’s Guide she tells how she created peace in her family of eight children by assigning property rights to toys. As a young mother, Klemp often brought home games and toys from garage sales. ‘I rarely matched a particular item with a particular child,’ she says. ‘Upon reflection, I could see how the fuzziness of ownership easily led to arguments. If everything belonged to everyone, then each child felt he had a right to use anything.’ To solve the problem, Klemp introduced two simple rules: First, never bring anything into the house without assigning clear ownership to one child. The owner has ultimate authority over the use of the property. Second, the owner is not required to share. Before the rules were in place, Klemp recalls, ‘I suspected that much of the drama often centered less on who got the item in dispute and more on whom Mom would side with.’ Now, property rights, not parents, settle the arguments. Instead of teaching selfishness, the introduction of property rights actually promoted sharing. The children were secure in their ownership and knew they could always get their toys back. Adds Klemp, ‘‘Sharing’ raised their self-esteem to see themselves as generous persons.’ Not only do her children value their own property rights, but also they extend that respect to the property of others. ‘Rarely do our children use each other’s things without asking first, and they respect a ‘No’ when they get one. Best of all, when someone who has every right to say ‘No’ to a request says ‘Yes,’ the borrower sees the gift for what it is and says ‘Thanks’ more often than not,’ says Klemp." - Janet Beales Kaidantzis
[http://econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41389] Need Area: Property > General
"Both ‘socialism’ and ‘fascism’ involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates ‘the vesting of ownership and control’ in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means ‘property,’ without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say ‘more honest,’ not ‘better’ — because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist - statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government — and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects." - Ayn Rand
(1905 – 1982), born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, she was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels ‘The Fountainhead’ and ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings. She is a major influence among libertarians and American conservatives. Quote from her essay, ‘The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus', in her book, 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'. [refer http://aynrandlexicon.com/ ]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41572] Need Area: Property > General
"[Three unalienable individual human rights - life, liberty and property:] The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave." - George Sutherland
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Quote from 1921.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41574] Need Area: Property > General
"Either you have a right to own property, or you are property. [As the 17th Century English philosopher, John Locke said, 'Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. (-Every man is free, not a slave. Therefore) The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (-As a free person, the product of the effort of his body is his private property. If a person was not free, that is a slave, then the product of the effort of his body would not be his but his owner's.)]" - E. Wayne Hage
March 1992
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.41583] Need Area: Property > General
"The amendments, which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures, are these: First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of, the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." - James Madison
(1751 – 1836), American statesman, political theorist and the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817). He is hailed as the 'Father of the Constitution' for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights. Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

Previous<<  1  2  4  5  6  7  Next Page>>

 
Imagi-Natives'
Self-Defence
& Fitness Training

because
Everyone deserves
to be
Healthy and Safe!
Ideal for Anyone's Personal Protection Needs
Simple, Fast, Effective!
Maximum Safety - Minimum Force
No Punches, Kicks, Chokes, Pressure Points or Weapons Used
Based on Shaolin Chin-Na Seize and Control Methods
Comprehensively Covers Over 130 Types of Attack
Lavishly Illustrated With Over 1300 illustrations
Accredited Training for Australian Security Qualifications
National Quality Council Approved