View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Thu Sep 27th, 2018 01:16 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 "The author demonstrates that ownership in common law — insofar as it exists — is constructed on the ruins of the feudal system. Having been developed in an ad hoc manner from such origins, the law of property is seen to be an amalgam of technical and complex principles, built around institutions which sometimes have archaic features that serve no useful purpose in the present day. The theory of "estates", which is espoused, is however acclaimed for its flexibility, its most celebrated attribute being that invaluable institution, the Trust. Ownership in civil law in contrast, is shown to have developed from the romanisation of the feudal system. The law of property, its principles and institutions, are more systematically and rationally organised. They are therefore more easily assimilated and applied. The theory of absolute ownership which is at its core, is however criticised for being, to some extent, inflexible. "

Classification of Property and Conceptions of Ownership in Civil and Common Law, 1997

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/rgd/1997-v28-n2-rgd02413/1035639ar.pdf

Does "ad hoc" mean the same thing as organic, grass-roots, natural, free market, voluntary association based upon agreements that include the agreement to avoid harming anyone for profit?


I tried reading further in Classification of Property and Conceptions of Ownership in Civil and Common Law, but the "common law" in that work appears to be the counterfeit version of the common law, in other words the original, genuine, organic, natural law common law that is explained in Spooner's work is voluntary association, and the counterfeit Common Law (tm) is involuntary association that appears to "develop" from the original.