OPPapers.com Essay Index >> English >> Liberalism And Socialism: Ownership
We have many free term papers and essays on Liberalism And Socialism: Ownership. We also have a wide variety of research papers and book reports available to you for free. You can browse our collection of term papers or use our search engine.
Liberalism and Socialism: Ownership. Regarded as a sociological category
ownership appears as the power to use economic goods. An ...
... Liberalism included having a government, but the government would ... created his own
version of socialism, More's Utopia, where collective ownership kept a ...
... not because it produces poverty or want to destroy ownership but b/c ... 1944 10/24 ·
Libertarianism ? radical, economic wing of liberalism · Socialism is the ...
... A belief in common ownership/communism ... collectivist anarchism is far from being an
extreme form of liberalism, but rather and extreme form of socialism.
... of socialism, in which private ownership is abolished and ... the inevitable outcome
of LIBERALISM, the extension ... CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM spread from its beginnings in ...
Submitted by dipset121 on March 13, 2006
Category: English
Words: 2119 | Pages: 9
Views: 116
Popularity Rank: 88,816
Average Member Grade: N/A (Add a Comment / Grade this Paper)
Regarded as a sociological category ownership appears as the power to use economic goods. An owner is he who disposes of an economic good.
I.1.1
Thus the sociological and juristic concepts of ownership are different. This, of course, is natural, and one can only be surprised that the fact is still sometimes overlooked. From the sociological and economic point of view, ownership is the having of the goods which the economic aims of men require.*1 This having may be called the natural or original ownership, as it is purely a physical relationship of man to the goods, independent of social relations between men or of a legal order. The significance of the legal concept of property lies just in this—that it differentiates between the physical has and the legal should have. The Law recognizes owners and possessors who lack this natural having, owners who do not have, but ought to have. In the eyes of the Law 'he from whom has been stolen' remains owner, while the thief can never acquire ownership. Economically, however, the natural having alone is relevant, and the economic significance of the legal should have lies only in the support it lends to the acquisition, the maintenance, and the regaining of the natural having.
I.1.2
To the Law ownership is a uniform institution. It makes no difference whether goods of the first order or goods of higher order form its subject, or whether it deals with durable consumption goods or non-durable consumption goods. The formalism of the Law, divorced as it is from any economic basis, is clearly expressed in this fact. Of course, the Law cannot isolate itself completely from economic differences which may be relevant. The peculiarity of land as a means of production is, partly, what gives the ownership of real property its special position in the Law. Such economic differences are expressed, more clearly than in the law of property itself, in relationships which are sociologically...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!