Property is not a Reified Concept

Reads: 146  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: In Progress  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: Anthony Ziuimmerman
This article argues that Property is a reified concept.

Submitted: April 21, 2016

A A A | A A A

Submitted: April 21, 2016

A A A

A A A


I argue that Property is not a reified concept.Reification is defined as treating an abstract concept as if it is concrete.Some argue, then, that property is a reified concept.I disagree with them.First, the word "'concrete' is itself a reified concept, and this renders the assertion that property is a reified concept to be logically circular.Next,  property itself is a reified concept and therefore invalid.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that "reifiecation" is a valid concept and consider the following:Jack is walking along a construction site and sees a pile of concrete rubble.On top of the concrete rubble pile is a sign, stating, "concrete rubble, take any rubble that you want for free."Now, before Jack takes a piece of concrete rubble, that rubble was a  "thing in itself."   Next, Jack grabs a piece of concrete rubble from the pile.  This piece of concrete rubble has now become a  "thing for Jack."   In legal terms, the rubble was abandoned by the original owner and Jack took a piece of that concrete rubble, and so the concrete piece of rubble is now in his "possession."   Now, I argue that if Jack keeps that piece of rubble long enough, the piece rubble is owned with legal title by Jack, using the adverse possession doctrine, by analogy.   Finally, somewhat tongue in cheek,  the piece of rubble cannot be reified lbecause it is concrete.


© Copyright 2017 Anthony Zimmerman. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments: