Sec. 2. #Nature of property#.  Property means ownership, and “ownership” is the abstract noun expressing the quality of possessing a thing.  Correspondingly, “owner” is the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of “proprietor.”  Property thus, fundamentally, means not an object held, or possessed, but the right in or belonging to a person to control something that he owns.  Ownership is a legal right to control under certain conditions.[2] Physical, possession of an object is not necessarily ownership.

There are different kinds of ownership.  It may be private, as that of individuals, families, partnerships, or corporations; or it may be public, as that of nations, states, counties, cities and towns, owning such things as public buildings, parks, highways, the Adirondack forest-reserve, or the Erie Canal.  These two kinds are equally effective as against the claims of outsiders, but the rights of those inside the circle of ownership differ.  For example, the rights of one shareholder against another, or the rights of one member of a family as against another, are not the same as the rights against outsiders.  Private property is the characteristic feature of our present industrial society, but it exists side by side with public property and with many intermediate grades between private and common property.

Tho property meant originally and essentially the intangible right to a thing, the word came to be applied also to the object of the right.  This is done both in common speech and in judicial decisions, with inevitable ambiguity.  This may be readily seen by trying to substitute the word ownership for property, a thing quite simple in some cases but impossible in others.  One would not point to a house and say, “This is my ownership,” but either, “This is my property,” or “I exercise ownership over it.”  It is well recognized that a man may have a property right in this abstract sense in or over his own services, as to practise a trade or in the “good will” of a business or in an intangible patent or a copyright, quite as well as in a material object.

Sec. 3. #Relation of wealth, property, and capital#.  A failure to see this distinction and to keep it clearly in mind has led to confusion, even on the part of legislatures, learned judges, and able economists.  If property is said to be (for example) a house and lot and at the same time the right to that house and lot, then there are two properties at once for each economic good, viz.:  the object itself and the right to it.[3]

This difficulty could be avoided by the consistent definition and use of terms.  A material economic object is a good, is a form of wealth.  The usance of wealth and the service of laborers at the moment rendered constitute forms of income.  The right of ownership, i.e., the right to control, use, or direct the use of wealth and services, is property, which is therefore the right to receive incomes.  The value of the incomes of an individual constitute his capital.  Goods, rights to goods, value of rights to goods:  these three things are clearly distinguishable.