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