scholarly journals Property, Commerce, and Living God's Will

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-172
Author(s):  
Garrick R. Small ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
Moral Action ◽  
Economic Power ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Property Ownership ◽  
God's Will ◽  
Christian Thought ◽  
External Forces ◽  
Market Capitalism

Market capitalism requires absolute private property, and both institutions appeared at about the same time in history. The morality of the market rests on the morality of property, which may be argued both from Scripture and secular perspectives. Both approaches yield a theory of property that supports private ownership conditional on obligations to the community. Apparent contradictions in Scripture regarding property are resolved by this approach. Property ownership confers economic power on its holder. Modernity assumes that this power must be controlled by external forces-either by the market, or the state-but both limit freedom. True moral action must be free. The moral opportunity of the market is to avoid using economic power to exploit others, especially the weak and needy. Christian thought supplies the outline principles for moral guidance for ethical market action that revolve about self-restraint.

Nationalizing Rivers, Expropriating Lands

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Pravilova
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Common Resources ◽  
Important Resource ◽  
Previous Discussion ◽  
Russian State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Southern Colonies ◽  
Do So

The previous discussion on forests and minerals showed that Russian professional and industrial elites were quite unhappy with the state's passivity and its reluctance to take on the management of common resources. The government explained its withdrawal from this sphere as an expression of its allegiance to the principle of private property. This chapter analyzes how the Russian state used its power to regulate the use of one publicly important resource—rivers, which had been rendered into the private ownership of nobles by Catherine the Great's manifesto of 1782. A comparison of the treatment of rivers with other spheres of expropriation, across diverse geographical areas, including the Russian southern colonies, will show when and why the state was eager to seize private properties, when it refused to do so, and why.

Chattel Property Rules and the Construction of Englishness, 1660–1800

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Staves
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Joint Venture ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Early Modern England ◽  
The State ◽  
Modern State ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Property Ownership ◽  
Rule Changes ◽  
Ownership Rights

To think of property as “things” owned by “persons” may be to miss a more interesting relation in which personhood itself can be constructed out of ownership rights, especially out of what a particular person is privileged or forbidden to own. Moreover, what is sometimes thought of as “private property” might more accurately be understood as the product of a joint venture engaged in by both individuals and the state. Now, instead of personhood and property existing outside of and independent of the state, both are significantly creatures of the modern state. In early modern England we can see the extent to which “England” and “Englishness” were themselves invented through rules of ownership and through the state's use of rules of ownership to project and to enforce certain ideas of desirable Englishness. A wide variety of statutory changes in the rules of property ownership conferred ownership rights on some persons previously lacking them and took away ownership rights from other persons previously possessing them; these rule changes were intended to promote certain kinds of personhood judged desirable by the legislature and to stigmatize and limit other kinds. Since early modern politicians and social theorists were quite self-conscious about the relations between property law and social structure, it is often possible to discern in the rule changes and in the debates about them what contemporaries supposed the ideological implications of the legal changes they advocated or resisted were.

scholarly journals Restrictions during pandemic: justified but is it lawful?

2021 ◽  
pp. 70-91
Author(s):  
Andra Mažrimaitė ◽  
Vytautas Pasvenskas
Keyword(s):  
Economic Activity ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
Property Ownership ◽  
Ownership Rights

The article analyses if restrictions on business during the quarantines were proportionate and legitimate. The authors of this article argue that the forced closure of businesses during quarantine in its essence resembles the institute of taking private property ownership rights for public needs rather than restricting the freedom of economic activity because activities have been suspended entirely instead of merely being subject to certain operational restrictions. Such restrictions may be imposed only in exceptional cases and in the form of a law. It would be in line to consider proportionate compensations for businesses’ losses due to forcible closure from the State.

A Public Empire

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Pravilova
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
State Reform ◽  
Imperial Russia ◽  
Public Status ◽  
Russian Literary ◽  
The Face

“Property rights” and “Russia” do not usually belong in the same sentence. Rather, our general image of the nation is of insecurity of private ownership and defenselessness in the face of the state. Many scholars have attributed Russia's long-term development problems to a failure to advance property rights for the modern age and blamed Russian intellectuals for their indifference to the issues of ownership. This book refutes this widely shared conventional wisdom and analyzes the emergence of Russian property regimes from the time of Catherine the Great through World War I and the revolutions of 1917. Most importantly, the book shows the emergence of the new practices of owning “public things” in imperial Russia and the attempts of Russian intellectuals to reconcile the security of property with the ideals of the common good. The book analyzes how the belief that certain objects—rivers, forests, minerals, historical monuments, icons, and Russian literary classics—should accede to some kind of public status developed in Russia in the mid-nineteenth century. Professional experts and liberal politicians advocated for a property reform that aimed at exempting public things from private ownership, while the tsars and the imperial government employed the rhetoric of protecting the sanctity of private property and resisted attempts at its limitation. Exploring the Russian ways of thinking about property, the book looks at problems of state reform and the formation of civil society, which, as the book argues, should be rethought as a process of constructing “the public” through the reform of property rights.

Problems Of Investment Attractiveness In The Economy Of Uzbekistan

GIS Business ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-245
Author(s):  
Khamrakulova O.D. ◽  
Bektemirov A.B.
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Development Strategy ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Economic Reforms ◽  
The State ◽  
Structural Reforms ◽  
The Development Strategy ◽  
Macroeconomic Stability

The deepening of economic reforms in Uzbekistan is closely linked to the strengthening of macroeconomic stability and the maintenance of high rates of economic growth and competitiveness, the continuation of institutional and structural reforms to reduce the presence of the State in the economy, and the further strengthening of the protection of rights and the priority role of private property, as reflected in the Development Strategy for 2017-2021.

FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTING SYSTEMOF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN UZBEKISTAN IN THE YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Bakhtiyor Khalmuratov ◽  
◽  
Madina Bakhriddonova
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
The Social

In the article the process of privatization of state property in Uzbekistan in the first years of independence, mechanisms of carrying out it, the influence of privatization processes on the social,economical life of the population and the activities of the privatized organizations in providing the population with work are analyzed. Also, legal basis of privatizing the state property are focused on

Konsep Distribusi Pendapatan Dalam Islam

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-97
Author(s):  
Moh. Ah. Subhan ZA
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Wealth Distribution ◽  
The State ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Job Opportunities ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Distribution Of Income

The main problem of social life in the community is about how to make the allocation and distribution of income well. Inequality and poverty basically arise not because of the difference of anyone’s strength and weakness in getting livelihood, but because of inappropriate distribution mechanism. With the result that wealth treasure just turns on the rich wealthy, which is in turn, results in the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.Therefore, a discussion on distribution becomes main focus of theory of Islamic economics. Moreover, the discussion of the distribution is not only related to economic issues, but also social and political aspects. On the other side, the economic vision of Islam gives priority to the guarantee of the fulfillment of a better life. Islam emphasizes distributive justice and encloses, in its system, a program for the redistribution of wealth and prosperity, so that each individual is guaranteed with a respectable and friendly standard of living. Islam recognizes private property rights, but the private property rights must be properly distributed. The personal property is used for self and family livelihood, for investment of the working capital, so that it can provide job opportunities for others, for help of the others through zakat, infaq, and shodaqoh. In this way, the wealth not only rotates on the rich, bringing on gap in social life.The problem of wealth distribution is closely related to the welfare of society. Therefore, the state has a duty to regulate the distribution of income in order that the distribution can be fair and reaches appropriate target. The state could at least attempt it by optimizing the role of BAZ (Badan Amil Zakat) and LAZ (Lembaga Amil Zakat) which has all this time been slack. If BAZ and LAZ can be optimized, author believes that inequality and poverty over time will vanish. This is because the majority of Indonesia's population is Muslim.

Insurgent Universality

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimiliano Tomba
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
European History ◽  
Monopoly Power ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Modern Conception ◽  
Democratic Practices ◽  
Fresh Perspective ◽  
Alternative Institutions

Insurgent Universality presents an intervention in current discussions on universalism, democracy, and property. It investigates other trajectories besides traditional ones of modernity and traces an alternative legacy for contemporary movements. This legacy exceeds the familiar juridical horizon of citizenship, individual rights, and the state by revisiting questions relating to power, democratic practices, and the modern conception of private property. Insurgent Universality investigates and displays alternative trajectories of modernity that have been repressed, hindered, and forgotten. These trajectories are not only embodiments of a radical hope and a new conception of universality that arose from insurgencies from below; they also alert us to possibilities in our present that have been underestimated or overlooked. Eventually, they show us alternative institutions by which to reshape our present. These experimental democratic practices and institutions are based on the pluralism of authorities instead of the monopoly power of the state. However, such an inquiry resists the utopian urge to clear the tables. Instead, the book examines more closely, and with a fresh perspective, those aspects of our intellectual inheritance that we have allowed to remain in the darkness. By doing this, Insurgent Universality aims to “decolonize” European history, offering an image of Europe that is not monolithic but, rather, composed of many layers and paths that have been repressed or forgotten. The aim of the book is to rebuild those roads not taken and bridge them with non-European trajectories and political experiments.

More or More of the Same: Ownership Concentration and Media Diversity in Egypt

2021 ◽  
pp. 194016122110251
Author(s):  
Zahraa Badr
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
State Ownership ◽  
The State ◽  
Ownership Concentration ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Media Diversity ◽  
Content Diversity ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Relationship

The Egyptian media has witnessed various changes in the ownership spectrum after the 2011 revolution. To explore this evolution, and through the Habermasian lens, this study examined ownership concentration in the 2019 media sphere in Egypt by mapping media outlets and their owners. It also investigated the relationship between this concentration and content diversity in a sample of print outlets in the first quarter of 2019. Three patterns of ownership concentration in the Egyptian media were identified: concentrated state ownership, concentrated private ownership, and not concentrated private ownership. Based on these findings, I argue that the media sphere in Egypt is dominated by a few gatekeepers, mostly the state, that influence content diversity and jeopardize the democratic public sphere in postrevolution Egypt.

scholarly journals Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: Reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Moroni
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Research Perspective ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Ownership Of Land ◽  
Planning Problems ◽  
Agonistic Pluralism

In the field of planning theory the discussion often seems to assume that all problems – for example, ethical or political ones – pertain to a single level or dimension. In fact, different and clearly separate “levels”, which raise problems of different kinds, can be distinguished. A “multi-level” approach therefore seems necessary. The underlying idea is that it is essential to distinguish more sharply between two analytical levels: the constitutional and post-constitutional levels. These levels are here understood mainly as analytical levels; that is, as standpoints that anyone can – at any time and even only hypothetically – assume to posit certain problems at the appropriate level and treat them by acknowledging the argumentative requirements suited to that level. This article uses such a multi-level approach to address three fundamental and currently much debated problems of planning theory and practice: the issue of “agonistic pluralism”; the issue of “public interest”; the question of “private ownership (of land)”. The contribution of this article falls within the neoinstitutionalist approaches to planning. The belief is that these approaches are shedding new light on planning problems and that research in this direction should be expanded. In this regard, this article attempts to make a contribution to this research perspective especially in analytical and methodological terms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document