A Theoretical Study Of The Personalization Of Property Rights

The personalization of property rights is a new understanding of the relationship between property and personality,which is mainly concerned with the question of how to recognize property rights and how to deal with property related to personality,while recognizing the existence of an intrinsic link between property and personality.The right to property is a right of great importance to people,and it is the concept of a system of rules concerning access to and control over material resources.At any time we are familiar with,material resources themselves have always been scarce in relation to human needs for them.Thus in any society where the avoidance of serious conflict is considered an important matter,the peaceful,reasonable,and predictable determination of who has access to what resources for what purposes,when,and to what extent becomes a problem we have to face.Different property rights arrangements,such as public,collective,and private property rights,are solutions to these problems,and since the 17 th century,private property rights theories have dominated the response to the question of "who has access to what resources,for what purposes,when," most notably Classical liberal theories of property rights.The classical liberal theory of property rights advocates the absolute nature of property rights,which inherently presupposes the separation of property from personality.As people’s understanding of the nature of human beings deepened,this concept of property rights,which advocates the absolute free transfer of property,was seen as misunderstanding individual freedom and misinterpreting the meaning of perfect self-development.The theory of personalization of property rights is a revised understanding of the theory of private property rights from the perspective of the relationship between personality and property.The theoretical premise of the personalization of property rights is the classical liberal theory of property rights.The classical liberal theory of property rights is premised on the theories of classical liberal scholars such as Hobbes and Locke,which assert that the right to property is a right that precedes political society.Preceding political society means that property rights are not created by political society,but are simply a right based on natural law.The passage of people from the state of nature into political society does not create any new rights,but merely transfers the rights in the state of nature to a political authority to protect people’s natural rights.Thus political society has no power to override natural law;the power of political society and government is limited to enforcing the rules of natural law.On the basis of this idea,classical liberalism asserts that the right to property is a right that encompasses possession,use,and disposition.This claim inherently implies that the right to property is conceptually a right to possess,use,and dispose.This is often referred to as the holistic view of property held by classical liberalism.Classical liberalism’s theory takes a "redescriptive" approach to property rights by opposing the bundle-of-rights view.Under the bundle-of-rights view,property rights are actually composed of a myriad of what Hohfeld calls "the bundle of right",and the content of property rights is not predetermined,but is determined after a dispute arises according to certain criteria.Thus,it is possible to have a property right that does not include any of possession,use,or disposition.Classical liberalism,on the other hand,argues that even if we acknowledge the validity of Hohfeld’s theory of rights and admit that property rights are composed of innumerable bundles of rights,this does not weaken the holistic view of property.This means,rather,that an infringement of any bundle of rights in the right to property is an infringement of the right to property.There is no hierarchy of property rights;every bundle of rights in a property right is important and is to be given equal protection.It is in the sense of contrast with bundles of rights that classical liberalism treats the right to property as an absolute right,not as a right that can be combined and interpreted at will.The formulation of the personalization of property rights rests on a critique of classical liberal theories of property rights.Classical liberal theories of property rights inherently presuppose a possessive market society,a possessive individualism.They inherently assume that the individual’s unrestricted pursuit of wealth is legitimate,even a natural right.A dichotomy between personhood and property is naturally presupposed in such theories.Personality is personality and has no connection to property.Personality is about the notion of the nature of "person".In the classical liberal theory of property,it actually distinguishes the understanding of the essence of "person" from the world,i.e.,it distinguishes between inner and outer,subjective and objective,and asserts that what is related to personality belongs to the inner sphere of person,which is subjective,while what is related to property is external,which belongs to the objective world.There is no necessary connection between the objective world and the subjective world of man.In the strictest case,"person" can exist without the objective world.The dichotomy between personality and property is inseparably related to this most primitive dichotomy between subject and object,between inner and outer.Taking Margaret Jane Radin’s distinction between theories of personality,the classical liberal theory of property rights actually upholds a thin view of personality.But when we look at the line of thought of Hegel,Marx and existentialism,the dichotomy of subject and object is actually a typical "alienation" thinking."It is impossible to leave the objective world and to think about human beings and their behavior in a completely "internalized"way.Man is not an abstract rule,but needs to produce himself,realize himself,and discover his own consciousness in concrete practical activities and concrete labor.The naturalistic way of thinking,which completely separates the material world from man,misunderstands the relationship between man and the world.In terms of the relationship between personhood and property,the classical liberal theory of property rights has certain dilemmas,and it improperly understands the dependence of personhood on property.Based on the problems of classical liberalism with respect to personhood and property,Margaret Jane Radin proposes the set of concepts of personhood property and fungible property to amend the classical liberal theory of property rights.According to Margaret Jane Radin,personality and property are not distinctly distinguished,and from the concept of human nature,it can be seen that there exists a part of property that has a close connection with personality,and the degree of protection for these properties is different from other similar things.These properties have a different content compared to other things because they involve the self-constitution of the person.The theoretical justification for the personalization of property rights can be drawn from Hegel’s account of property rights.Margaret Jane Radin’s distinction between personal and fungible property initially shows us the possibility of the personalization of property rights,and her main work is to provide a useful direction for our analysis of the personalization of property rights-that there is a necessary connection between property and personality,and that we can understand the personalization of property rights in terms of the “person”.The notion of the nature of "person" is the starting point for understanding the personalization of property rights.However,a question remains here: how should one concretely prove theoretically the property of personhood and the possibility of personalization of property rights.In the light of Hegel’s discussion of the relationship between property and personality,the ownership of property is important for the human individual,because only through the possession and control of property can he "embody" his will in external objects and begin to transcend the subjectivity of his existence.It is in the process of processing,using and controlling an object that man’s will becomes mature and stable,and enables him to establish himself in a group with such a will,which is not possible in other cases.Of course,he cannot always concentrate on his position as owner;there are other tasks to be done before the ethical development is completed.But Hegel is adamant that property is necessary: unless he can establish himself as owner,the development of the individual in other areas of ethical life will be seriously threatened.As we have seen,property is important for the individual,not only because it satisfies one’s material needs,but also because of its emancipatory contribution to the life of the will.Thus,the concept of personal property is not just an intuition;it is a concept that can be substantiated.The content of the personalization of property rights manifests itself in the form of personal property and fungible property.Unlike classical liberalism,which regards property as a complete commodity,or with a completely commodified attitude,the theory of personalization of property rights asserts that personal property cannot be regarded as a complete commodity,but is an incomplete commodity due to its close relationship with personality.It cannot be easily transferred and cannot be disposed of at the will of the owner.Fungible property,on the other hand,is regarded as a commodity,which has a communicable value and emphasizes transferability.The classification of personal property and fungible property is not a static,fixed classification,but a dynamic one,which may undergo certain transformations according to the subject’s attitude toward property.The personal property may be transformed into fungible property through depersonalization,and the fungible property may be transformed into personal property through the personalization of things.The theory of personalization of property rights can be applied in practice with reference to the distinction between intrinsic reasons and extrinsic reasons of rights.When deciding whether something is a personal property,we can first analyze what is the intrinsic reason of personal property,then analyze what is the reason for giving protection to something,and finally analyze whether the two reasons are consistent.If the two are consistent,then the thing is a personal property,and if not,then it is not.