Political Concept of Property - Essay Example

Political Concept of Property Property is defined as an owned possession. Property could include virtually anything whose rights have been claimed by a particular owner. It could be a car, a piece of land, livestock, or any other possession belonging to a specific individual. It can be understood from one of the various legal, economic and social perspectives. A property’s ownership, for example, is a legal concept which involves the rights and obligations of the owner who claims possession of the property. Income and taxation are economic concepts associated with a property. Property in the form of real estate or livestock could earn income for a person. At the same time the income could be liable for taxation. But because property essentially involves a ‘proprietary’ component, it occupies a central place in the politics of rights and governance. It indicates that property is characterized by possession which is fluid in nature. As such the governing law and political authority has a great impact on the variation in rights pertaining to a particular property. Without a political framework in the back it is impossible to claim ownership or possession of a property. Political frameworks and legislations exist to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore, property has a political aspect because it involves ownership, transfer of rights, and other variations in rights in which governmental authorities, legislations, and institutions play a vital role. Ownership of a property is a critical element that defines the difference between communism and capitalism – the two polar political ideologies. Communism does not allow private ownership of any real estate property or vital resources (“Communism vs Capitalism”, 1). On the other hand, capitalism allows and encourages private ownership of property so as to propel production and maximize profits. It all comes to the ownership of property which is greatly influenced by the political ideologies that govern a particular country. Therefore the political landscape provides the legal as well as socio-economic context for the ownership and transfer for property. For example, in a country dictated by communism, a property is only owned by the state or the government. As such, individuals do not have the right to own any property as their own. Similarly a capitalist government allows and encourages private ownership of land so as to promote optimum productivity. The main idea here is that governments seek to provide producers with an incentive to be more productive by allowing to own their lands and earn more thus paying higher taxes. Hence, property or land is an important factor in the political arena. So the relationship between property and politics is rooted in rights; rights to ownership, right to sell or acquire property, and so on. Land or property rights have played a crucial role in the colonial and postcolonial era. The history of colonialism is riddled with acquisition of resources and land from colonies by imperialists and settlers. Property or colonial land was at the core of colonialism. European settlers in America purchased land from their native owners thereby acquiring the property. However, conflicts soon erupted due to the differing definitions of property (Walter, n.pag.). Walter classifies property into two basic types: real and personal. Real property includes tracts of lands, plots, and other real estates that includes structures. Personal property on the other hand included any possession that could be moved from one place to another. However the Native American concept of land was quite complicated. Indians could own the land in which they lived or farmed however the ownership was limited to the period of usage. Which means that owners only possessed the land for the time the land was being used and not beyond that. The European settlers had a different concept of land as a property; they looked to it as any other commodity that was bought and sold for commercial purposes and that which had obligations under law through exclusive rights (Walter, n.pag.). Therefore, there was a complexity in the ownership of land thereby creating a confusion. Land has been an important factor in colonialism from which the settlers derived many resources for commercial gain. Because land is essentially owned and is a property of an individual, the rights presented a challenge especially under a law that is enforced. Rights is therefore an important politico-legal issue that is governed by laws. Political policymakers define policies that affect the rights concerning ownership of property and transfer of property rights. The political landscape provides the setting which legally supports ownership and transfer of rights. Legislators are responsible for creating laws and statues that affect property ownership and its associated legalities. As such they occupy a very important position in policymaking. For example, land rights have been vital in developmental policing in the post-colonial era (Duffield and Hewitt, 176). This particularly relates to customary rights to land and the variation in rights as the development policies. Land rights and the usage of resources derived from a particular land add to the complexity of the rights defined by the government. Government policymaking is critical in defining the rights of territorial ownership and the sharing of profits. In the case of Sudan, land rights led to a conflict through a government-sponsored marginalization of the population and subsequent encroachment and appropriation of lands by the government (Duffield and Hewitt, 176). In any case, the government and policymakers play a significant role in defining land or property rights. This is another reason why property is also a political concept. Another economic aspect of property which is tied to politics and the prevailing policies relates to income and taxation. Property is a head of income and promotes economic wellbeing of a country. An entire real estate sector exists that contributes to income for individuals as well as the government through taxation. People derive resources from lands or use it as a capital for producing goods. Property or land constitutes a major fixed cost for many industries and government also enforces many laws regarding taxation and other variables such as depreciation and amortization. Again government plays a vital role by developing policies that directly or indirectly affect the economics and legalities of owning and using a property. However, the economics and legal aspects of a property is greatly tied with policymakers and a government’s orientation towards a particular political ideology. In most capitalistic environments, regulations on owning a property are fairly appreciative of economic development and thus greater taxes. To sum up, property is a possession essentially belonging to an individual or a government. The ownership of property is a major element that defines its legal, social, and economic aspects which itself is underlined by political regimes and policymaking in the field. Historically as well, land and land rights have been a source of conflict among colonialists and other regimes. Therefore rights related to ownership and transfer of land remain sensitive issues that are guided by government laws. Another fundamental aspect of property ownership is the political ideology. In states ruled by a communist government, the general populations are prohibited from owning property where government owns major vital resources as well as other properties. In capitalistic states with liberal policies, however, government allows private ownership of property to encourage profit maximization thereby providing an incentive for producers and manufacturers to be more productive (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.pag.). Therefore, governmental policies that are liberal actually support private properties. It is therefore evident that political landscape has a deep connection with the legalities and policies surrounding property. Governments and regimes define the context in which property exists as a possession of any entity be it an individual or the state. Works Cited Communism Vs Capitalism. 1st ed. San Jose Unified School District. Web. 19 Oct. 2015. Duffield, Mark R, and Vernon Marston Hewitt. Empire, Development & Colonialism. Woodbridge, Suffolk: James Currey, 2009. Print. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,. Property Concepts. N.p., 2015. Web. 19 Oct. 2015. Walbert, David. Colonial North Carolina. Learn NC, 2009. Print. Read More