viii CONTENTS
PART II CLAIM AND TITLE: EFFECTS
5. My Claims Tie Together Modern Philosophies of Property Law 109
The Language of “Possession” and “Rights” Muddies the Meaning
of Property 109
The Conception of Possession Discards Mind and Custom from Property 112
A. M. Honoré Would Seem to Agree 115
The Neo-Lockean Theory Invokes Custom but Doesn't Go Far Enough 120
Exclusive Use Cannot Explain Property as a Scheduling Pattern 123
Kantian A Priorism Cannot Account for the Moral Significance and
Transmission of Property
The In Rem Theory Operates at the Macro-Level
Disputes Explicate How We Cognize Property, Out of Which
We Discover a Clear General Rule
The Custom for Created Goods Is First-in-Hand
Especially If the Thing Is Your Creation
But Also If the Thing Is in the Common State Placed by Nature
The Custom May Evolve to First-to- Work-Upon, If Costs Are High
Firstness Doesn't Matter If Location Priorly Matters
If You Have Property inY and X Is in Y, You Have Property in Xin'Y
The General Rule Is That Simple
A Difficult Case Indicates How to Test the General Rule
The Results of a Test Are Agreeable to the Prediction
With an Unexpected but Consistent-with-the-Prediction Proviso
Appendix A: Coding Results of Postexperiment Survey
Appendix B: Experiment Instructions and Survey Results
Economics Is Founded Upon Property, Not Property Rights
The Language of “Property Rights” Contains a Tacit Assumption
Property Effects Property Rights
Property Is a Fundamental Principle of Economics
Property Rights Are Unidirectional, but Human Action Is Bidirectional
131
131
135
136
138
140
142
145
146
R
150
163
166
171
174
178
182
189
194
Epilogue
Cases Cited
References
Index
196
203
205
217