The rise of a property
1. Human society needs to arrange property
First up is the property of the rise of the process. The rise property has two power, one is external. One is the concentration of the population.
Property rights are not naturally exists in our society, it has undergone a long process of development.
Because of the clear property right, exercise and protection of property rights requires costly, if not the necessity, we do not need a variety of property rights arrangements. If we want to divide a bread, breaking off a bit on it. But if we want to divide the gold bars, we need to spend all kinds of scales and measuring instruments. Only when the power arrangement brings benefits large enough, it was to consider how to define property rights, how to exercise and protect property rights.
2. One of the rise of property Power: External
In the United States, it did not present a very clear definition of property rights. At that time people hunt to see an animal, that is, who hit who, no need for a very clear definition of property rights.
This situation continued to rise sailing. After the rise of marine, animal fur can be sent to Europe by ship to sell, fur has become worthless, so the hunt more and more people, the less the number of animals. Then arose the so-called "externalities", we play more than a man can fight a little. Therefore, the society gradually created a demand for property protection.
But the problem is how to define property rights of animals? Animals everywhere, pointing to an animal can not say "This is my animal, the animal is yours." Then people will need to rely on the help of the natural environment.
In the northeastern United States, most of the animals are burrowing animals, they have a feature that will not be too far away from their nest. So although it is difficult to define who owns the animal, but who should define what the hills. As long as the hills determining Well, basically you can determine who owns the animals in the mountains. Then they formed a definition of property rights and the exercise of a prototype, a top of a mountain, slowly definition from the original total to the collective, even to define all the family.
Property defines the American Southwest 3: Denim with steel mesh
4. Property rise Power II: population centers
Another important reason is the rise of property, transportation costs fell sharply, so that people and goods long-distance travel and transportation possible, and lead to a direct consequence of this, is the high concentration of people and goods.
People can live together in dense, then the conflicts between people will more and more, so they produce, that is, the demand for property on the "exclusive rights arrangements".
The close ties and rich life of modern people
Today, we live in a big city, all the time enjoying the transportation cost, the constant flow of goods and people benefit. I read a children's book, this book is about is to compare the past and the people living today.
People born in the past where he basically lived all her life in there. Eat things that are keening long out, I will not eat something further afield produced. And today we live in a big city, and you can eat continental breakfast in the morning, at noon to eat Thai food at night to eat Brazilian barbecue. In the center of big cities, the range is basically a few kilometers, will be able to eat food from different corners of the world.
At the same time, between strangers with strangers, practice between the various resources has become very tight.
6. exchanges and cooperation between strangers
We introduced earlier, Adam Smith's view of human nature, and talked about is caring between people, but between the people rules need to speak with strangers. This time it replaced the rule of reciprocity common among those past acquaintances.
We say that the market economy will not make human weak it? From one perspective, it does make human become weak, but the arrangements for such a system of property rights and to make our material life becomes more abundant, but also to make our spiritual life more enriched.
The physical distance between those who are close to, for example, I could not much interaction with between neighbors, but physically distant people, but they can communicate with each other's thoughts and feelings more often via the Internet. More and more people able to dominate their spiritual life.
Two property rights: the right to use, and transfer of usufruct rights
Next, we analyze three elements or three important aspects of property rights - the right to use, usufruct and transfer of rights. The sum of the three powers is a complete property.
1. Right to Use
The first link is the right to use the property, its meaning so that we can decide how to use resources. The right to use alone is not difficult to understand, it is difficult to ownership conflicts, how to understand?
Use and ownership conflict is reflected in: If the ownership of an item owned by a person, the right to use owned by another person and another person have the right to use all the time, that person's ownership of how to embody?
Why are there two conflicting concepts of parallel it? One reason is to mediate the conflict of property rights advocates. That is, using both sides of a conflict of resources, we have to let each other down the stairs to find a new argument that is owned by you, but the right to use mine. This will find a solution acceptable to both sides.
Real life is very common during this conflict. For example, our 1982 "Constitution" provides that:. "No organization or individual may appropriate, buy, lease or other forms of illegal transfer of land," but the 1988 revised "Constitution" provides that "any organization or individual may appropriate, trade or other forms of illegal transfer of land use right of the land for sale "in accordance with the law.
Written on the front of the transfer does not work, but then behind that sentence would read, "the right to use land may be transferred according to law," which makes it difficult to understand.
The main reason for this amendment is that a few months ago, Shenzhen took out a piece of state land auction. This is the history of the famous "Shenzhen first beat." It was the land auction in the absence of a legal basis.
At that time, Shenzhen Development needs funds, but the funds do not have the Shenzhen Municipal Government, on the proposal of foreign funds into the land sold. But the "Constitution" expressly prohibit the transfer of land, how to do?
SAR also in Shenzhen City of reform, they will test the "first shot" of this land. Dozens of days after the auction, the Guangdong Provincial People's Congress before the end of the year by a local laws and regulations, confirming the right to use urban state-owned land may be transferred. In the second year National People's Congress revised "constitution", he confirmed the practice of Shenzhen.
We just look at the law, there is no way to understand the conflict between the wording of the two provisions between before and after. We have to put them in a see-economic backgrounds. A new version, a new term, will be able to open the deadlock, and freed resources, then very important.
In addition to looking for an argument, the other side there is the next step, to break the deadlock, there are other distinguished role in the ownership and use rights.
For example, in the UK, ownership of the land owned by the Queen, the right to use for his own. Meaning that when they were not fighting, how to use land owned by individuals; and in the war, the queen may land acquisition. Divided ownership and use rights refers to the right to use under different conditions.
Another interesting phenomenon: in many countries, the landlord is the owner of the land, who owns land ownership; and farmers have the right to use the land, they decide what to cultivate on a piece of land, how to cultivate. This is actually a division of labor. Because landlords usually dealing with the state apparatus, in charge of tax, to seek protection, so they have is nominal ownership of the land; and farmers were more adept at farming, they do is live technical, they decided how to use the land, how farming. Thus two points right piece of land - ownership and use rights, actually represents a piece of land resources in a different part, different aspects of the use and division of labor.
2. The right to income distribution
The second part is the property usufruct, that is, the right to income distribution.
An asset will continue to provide services to provide services will be paid, whether it is a temporary property owner, or its permanent owner, has the right to get the asset allocation of income, which is the usufruct assets.
One can dominate earnings are likely to be the landlord, it could be a manager of the company, or that I SASAC officials. This is easy to understand.
3. transfer rights
The third part of the property, is the most important part is the transfer of rights.
If a person only has the right to use an asset and income right, but not the right to transfer, he often has this asset is only temporary.
Because the transfer of rights means that the future permanent, full rights and benefits of the right to an asset, all of a sudden the wholesale transfer. A person only when he was in full possession of an asset, he can be an asset in the future once the usufruct right to use and every moment, were transferred out.
In real life, some people tend to have a temporary assets. For example, a SASAC official, he controls some state-owned assets, he can decide how this state-owned assets currently used, it can determine how the current income distribution, but he has no right to sell it and the income account bit own. This demonstrates that he does not really have this asset.
From the point of view of property rights, it was not really have an item, the most effective litmus test is to see if he has no right to sell it.
One of the three property rights protection: the principle of property
There are three basic principles of protection of property rights - the principle of property, liability and the principle of non-negotiable principles. The contents of these three principles are not traditional economics, law and economics but the contents of this interdisciplinary.
A Perspective 1. Cathedral
To introduce the three principles of protection of property rights, we must mention a famous paper. Called "the principle of property, liability principle and the principle of non-alienation: the perspective of a cathedral." As you know, the Catholic Church smooth and slick, very responsible, and the author of the church perspective used here, means that there are many ways to protect human property rights, the three basic principles mentioned in the article, this is just like Cathedral angle inside a very responsible thing, somewhat similar to the Chinese idiom "Benevolence" means.
The article said that the principle of protection of property rights of three categories: The first is called the principle of property, and the second is called the principle of responsibility, and the third called non-negotiable principles.
2. The principle of property
What is the principle property of it? It means: a person wants to deprive property rights of others, there is only one way is to pay this man, he is willing to give up to pay up. If this method is to take the property from the hands of others to come, then this property is based on the principle of protection of property. Under the principle of property, government property only once the intervention, and that is indeed the right. After the right to do, transaction of property rights and others voluntarily, the government will not intervene.
3. The principle of responsibility
The second principle is called the principle of responsibility. Meaning that the principle of responsibility: when a person occupied property rights of others in the future, the aggressor must compensate the property owner, but the amount of compensation is not determined by the owner, but by a third party.
This third party can be a country, may be insurance companies, it can also be a government official or judge. This principle with the principle property of different, in principle, the property is a property exchange pricing by the property owners themselves, while responsibility principle means that pricing is determined by a third party.
In implementing the principle of liability, government intervention is often done twice: the first time is indeed right, and the second is when the violations occurred, to determine the amount of compensation by the government.
4. The principle of non-transferable
The third principle is called the principle of non-negotiable, as the name suggests, is the owner of his government banned owned assets sold to someone else.
Under the principle of non-transferable, government protection of property rights were triple intervention: first, indeed the right; second, if a violation and infringement of the amount of compensation is determined by the government; third, the government banned the original property owners to sell his property.
5. What kind of principle of protection of property rights and better
These three forms of protection of property rights, in real life is often mixed use. When someone wants to occupy my house, my house is subject to the principle of protection of property; when the state should build fire stations, intends to expropriate my land, my house is subject to the principle of responsibility to protect the country needs to give me a reasonable compensation; when I was drunk unconscious signed a contract to sell the house, the house is subject to the principle of the protection of non-negotiable, because of an invalid contract signed intoxicated case.
These three principles Which is better? We might say that government intervention as possible, so the property is certainly better than the principle of the responsibility principle, and the principle of responsibility better off than the non-negotiable principles. Is that right? Not necessarily.
Under normal circumstances, the principle of course is a good property. Some fancy our watches, the only way is bid, bid high but we are willing to sell so far. Then we watch the best decision is the only one really worth, which of course is an ideal state.
But sometimes, we may not be able to complete this transaction. For example, the human arm worth, should be decided by themselves, but not necessarily in real life. If road accident victims to be injured arm amputated, the other full responsibility, then the injured arm can not get through the principle of property, a price to the perpetrators, to compensate his arm it? The answer is no.
Because traffic accidents have happened, if the victim to offer, it may not be 20 million, 200 million, but 20 million yuan, 200 million yuan, leading ultimately no solution. Therefore, the human arm in a road accident worth, may determine by a third party, then the principle of responsibility.
That is, in the transaction costs are very high, in no way pre-bargaining situation, we can only second best, using the principle of responsibility.
6. A large number of property protection of property rights can not in principle
Traffic accident injured arm in the end there is no possibility of advance pricing. the answer is negative. So in real life, because of transaction costs, a large number of property rights can not be protected by the principle of property, and can only be protected by the principle of responsibility.
7. Why should we punish criminals
Distinguish between property and the principle of responsibility, but also from the economic point of view to us a revelation, and that is why we want to punish criminals.
We may think that if someone infringement a criminal offense, not to be put into prison, but continued to work on the outside, made money allocated to the victims, not be able to reduce the deadweight loss it? But in fact, no society would do. The reason is that criminals guilty of two felonies: First, he hurt others; second, he changed the rules, the original obviously can protect assets in accordance with the principle of property, became only be protected by the principle of responsibility. When we punish criminals, in fact, punishment is two felony.
We will often see a situation in which the criminal case, the victim after the injury, not willing to come out to testify against the suspect. Then we used to prosecution by the state of way, is to deter criminal suspects, or they arbitrarily change the rules of the game, obviously without those assets can be used to protect the principle of property, it becomes only with the principle of responsibility to protect.
Two of the four property rights protection: the principle of liability
1. dock the emergency case
This is the case, the plaintiff with his wife, children, playing sail on the lake, suddenly encountered a storm, the plaintiff took the boat tied to the defendant's dock. Then defendant servant found someone invaded their own territory, put the boat to untie. The ship was the result of storms knocked over, not only the ship was destroyed, the plaintiff's wife and children were also injured, so the plaintiff to sue the owner of the pier and its servants, saying they led to the family and financial damage.
Then we encountered a conflict between two kinds of property rights, property rights is a pier, a boat is property of, should be protected in the end which one do?
Boat tied to the dock, of course, the pier has some damage, but this damage was relatively light. In turn, the owner of the pier intact in order to protect its own marina, boat untied the others, the ship drifted into the lake, the loss suffered is enormous. Two evils choose the light, our moral practices would think that this time we should let the plaintiff entitled to requisition an emergency, the right to use the pier, with legal terminology, is called "the emergency right."
In fact, this case is a final judgment for the plaintiff. From this we get an important inspiration: we in the protection of property rights, in the end is the property of principle or principles of responsibility, it is important to weigh the standard is to see transaction costs.
2. The principle of liability in the case of modern property rights
Look at a modern property rights case, the Court is an example of how alternative use of property and the principle of responsibility.
Suppose a pharmaceutical factory to spend a lot of money, take a long time to develop a new drug, a pharmaceutical factory in addition to his imitation drugs. Then the judge will usually adopt the principle of property to protect pharmaceutical companies have been infringed, enact embargo against counterfeit pharmaceutical companies, it continues to prohibit counterfeit. At this property principles.
While in other cases where - for example in the software industry, assuming that Apple's or Microsoft's software products, tens of millions of lines of code in hundreds of millions of lines of a small portion of the infringing someone else's patent - the judge will not be used property protection principles to the patentee. The judge ordered Apple or Microsoft will not recall all products, get rid of the code inside the infringement of re-sales. Because the cost of doing so is too high, the program hundreds of millions of rows in tort, or a little more or less normal. Then the judge usually will follow the principle of responsibility, the company has ordered that the company was infringing the infringement compensation, and the amount of compensation is determined by a third party.
Therefore, a core reason to adopt the principle of responsibility is that the cost of using the principle of protection of property rights to the property is too high, but the damage is done, then only a compensation for the damage done by a third party pricing. This mode can also be extended to the liquidated damages which contract law.
Three of the five property rights protection: non-negotiable principles
Government protection of property, but also by common principles of non-transfer of such protection. For example, a person delirious, signed the agreement to be invalid; a person is not of legal age, even if he volunteered to be child labor, signed labor contracts nor legal; many countries prohibit prostitution, both men and women prostitution is illegal. Although the body belongs to the individual, but also protected by the government, so the individual is not entitled to sell their bodies, have no right to rent their bodies to others.
The reason why the government should prohibit transactions, to protect property rights by the principle of non-negotiable, there are many reasons.
1. In order to avoid social problems and prohibit transactions
The first reason is that the government believes some of the sale will cause a lot of social problems. After allowing the sale, come back and deal with the sale of various conflicts caused, cost too much, so from the beginning on the organization of this sale. For example, government regulations may not sell off land to those plants they bring a lot of pollution, or to some companies involved in national security to foreigners and so on.
The second reason is widely recognized that the sale would threaten some of the existing morality, such as prostitution, organ trading, government representatives will of the majority to ban such trading.
2. paternalism and non-negotiable principles
The third reason is the so-called "paternalism" that the government felt more personal than to understand their interests, just as his father loved his son, for individuals call the shots. For example, in some places, although the agricultural land belonging to the farm name, farm name have right of residence, right of cultivation, but they have no right to sell the land. Many scholars believe that once the farmers to sell the land, it will become landless, become homeless, society will cause a variety of problems.
3. paternalism self-enforcing
4. Moore v. University of California Board case
About the organ trade, there is a real case, called "Moore v. University of California Board of case."
The plaintiff John Moore, 1976, was diagnosed with leukemia at a medical school in the University of California. After removal of the doctor mole spleen, he found his unique snow cells, capable of stimulating produces a protein that can further stimulate the growth of white blood cells, white blood cells and this can inhibit cancer. So the medical school began to develop with Moore's spleen out of a range of products to treat leukemia.
Medical doctors not only took a big bonus and also set up a company, in this case the decision in 1990, the company's value has reached $ 3 billion.
But the doctor did not tell Moore, and later found a lawyer to investigate the truth came out. So he sued the University of California.
This last case to the California Supreme Court, Supreme Court of California held that the plaintiff does not have the right to trade its own organs, he brought some of his body inside this unique cell, ownership is not owned by the plaintiff at all.
As for the laboratory School of Medicine, received due to the huge number of samples per day, these samples from all sides, so it is difficult to determine the laboratory, these samples ways to get itself is not illegal, so medical school has no responsibility.
The judges of the Supreme Court of California is also inconsistent views. Some judges believe that, although the patient does not have ownership of their own organs, but should consist of at least the right to know. Other judges argued that because the patients do not have ownership of the organs, can not make a profit, so there is a loss and off, since there is no loss, do not know can.
My own view is that if John Moore himself does not have any ownership of the organ, then he certainly can not get any money but if he has ownership of its own organs, how much he earns is really unknown. Because from one extreme point of view, he did not have any contribution to the subsequent development of the product, and therefore should not get a lot of money.
At the same time, because he has a unique cell, can produce very valuable research, so itself contains certain rental value (as long as the revenue-called assets, while assets called pay rent) . So there will be many Medical snapped this cell, if he can be assigned substantial income, is not surprising.
In this case, the focus of our analysis is not a mole in the end should or should not have their organs, but to figure out if a person has the right to own organ trading, then what will be the consequences if this is not right, then what will be produced kind of consequences.
The sale of organs is prohibited and non
We do institutional causal analysis, take a look at a different system, a different convention, which will have different consequences. Such an analysis, the focus is economics.
Mankind has banned the sale of organs, it brings the cost is not so high, because humans are not good at in the past organ transplant. At first, doctors also explain do organ transplants, but new organ transplant patient soon died. Until one day, a doctor in a transplant of a pair of twin brothers who, successful results, we discovered that people have organ allograft rejection. Later, the medical overcome this difficulty, organ transplant was possible.
When organ transplantation becomes possible, then ban organ transplants cost becomes high, and with organ transplantation technology becomes more mature, organ transplant prices getting lower and lower, the losses caused by the ban becomes getting bigger.
Today, in addition to the human nervous system and the brain can not change, other organs can be changed. If re-enforcement of the ban organ transplants, patients affected on the lot.
We certainly want to see, people have to sell their own organs, may be forced by poverty, it is not reluctant. We also see the other side: those who are waiting for organs because there is no death, could get organ, now due to the lack of a ban on the sale of organs.
A basic principle of economics is paid to increase the supply. Many people think that if the organ trade liberalization, wonder because the poor will want to make some money, and had to sell their organs. In fact, if the legalization of organ trade, but who are dead, they will become the largest organ supply base. Many people died due to illness, many of their organs can still continue to use.
Traffic accidents every day because a lot of people died, they provide a more vivid organs. Is there any way to make people take the initiative to donate their organs do? If an accident occurs, a person can put all the organs are sold, can leave hundreds of thousands to millions of his family, then he may be willing to indicate on the driving license: In case of an accident, is willing to sell organs . Therefore, the supply of organs yuan will be much more than today.
We see what people implement the principle of non-transferable, there are various reasons behind it, and focus on the economic analysis is: if there is market demand for a commodity, but the law has prohibited the sale of people, it will produce what kind consequences, these consequences compliance with our original good intentions.