Property Rights Systems and the Rule of Law, page 3 Property and Property Rights Systems The word"property" does not strike the listener's ear as a particularly abstruse term. We think we understand it instinctively. Property is a thing. Or things are property. But, of course, when we go to say anything more precise to specify whose property a thing is, and what aspects of it are proprietary, against whom, for what purposes, we realize that property is not so readily self-defining after all. And if we think a bit more, we realize as well that property does not consist only of things, at least not only of tangible things We call certain types of ideas -or at least certain forms of their expression - intellectual property and craft property rights in them. We recognize claims for money, for services that are equivalent to money, or for employment that earns money under the rubric of property rights 6 The line between property rights and other rights is a contestable line. This re- flects the fact that the notion of property itself -what it is, how it should be thought of who should have what property rights- has been a subject of controversy across centu- ries. Philosophers(along with economists, historians, and others) have argued whether property is something natural, existing prior to government recognition of rights, or in- stead is a positive construct of government. They have contested the strength and provenance of a deep-seated historic impulse to stake out individual rights in property with contrasting claims that the natural order is not of individual but of communal rights. 3 And they have debated the proper basis for and scope of rights to realty and to personal property, to intangible goods and to government largesse. Modern-day scholars con- tinue the arguments, drawing threads forward from hoary engagements to mix with more current assessments of the effects of inequality or of miscast incentivesProperty Rights Systems and the Rule of Law, page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Property and Property Rights Systems The word “property” does not strike the listener’s ear as a particularly abstruse term. We think we understand it instinctively. Property is a thing. Or things are property. But, of course, when we go to say anything more precise, to specify whose property a thing is, and what aspects of it are proprietary, against whom, for what purposes, we realize that property is not so readily self-defining after all.5 And if we think a bit more, we realize as well that property does not consist only of things, at least not only of tangible things. We call certain types of ideas – or at least certain forms of their expression – intellectual property and craft property rights in them. We recognize claims for money, for services that are equivalent to money, or for employment that earns money under the rubric of property rights.6 The line between property rights and other rights is a contestable line. This re￾flects the fact that the notion of property itself – what it is, how it should be thought of, who should have what property rights – has been a subject of controversy across centu￾ries. Philosophers (along with economists, historians, and others) have argued whether property is something natural, existing prior to government recognition of rights, or in￾stead is a positive construct of government.7 They have contested the strength and provenance of a deep-seated historic impulse to stake out individual rights in property, with contrasting claims that the natural order is not of individual but of communal rights.8 And they have debated the proper basis for and scope of rights to realty and to personal property, to intangible goods and to government largesse.9 Modern-day scholars con￾tinue the arguments, drawing threads forward from hoary engagements to mix with more current assessments of the effects of inequality or of miscast incentives.10