Quotes About Ownership

Government has no other end than the preservation of property.

but since He gave it them for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw form it, it cannot be supposed He meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it)...

God gave the World to Men in Common; But since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest Conveniencies of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and Rational, (and Labour was to be his Title to it;) not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious.

Every man has a property in his person, This nobody has a right to, but himself.

He that had as good left for his improvement as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another's labour:

we see how labour could make men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses; wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel.

Where there is no property, there is no injury

that every man should have as much as he could make use of, would hold still in the world, without straitening any body;

though men had a right to appropriate, by their labour, each one to himself, as much of the things of nature as he could use:

The great and cheif end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting

we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery:

It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men.

at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others

He was only to look that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others.

As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property.

the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

el disfrute de bienes en ese estado es muy inestable, en zozobra. Ello le hace desear el abandono de una condición que, aunque libre, llena está de temores y continuados peligros; y no sin razón busca y se une en sociedad con otros ya reunidos, o afanosos de hacerlo para esa mutua preservación de sus vidas, libertades y haciendas, a que doy el nombre general de propiedad.

Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others ; what portion a man carved to himself was easily seen: and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.

nadie puede transferir a otro más poder del que encerrare en sí, y nadie sobre sí goza de poder absoluto y arbitrario, ni sobre los demás tampoco, que le permitiere destruir su vida o arrebatar la vida o propiedad ajena.

God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniencies of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated.

Americans have a right to be concerned with the increased frequency and severity of mass public shootings in their own country. But the fact of the matter is that the rest of the world has it worse, and is definitely not an example for the U.S. to follow. The U.S. has high gun ownership rates, and it hasn't resulted in any elevated level of mass public shootings.

The New York Times' pro-gun control results seem to stem from a heavy reliance on public health researchers. Furthermore, the Times only asks questions calling for more government regulations of gun ownership. But the Times' panel was even more supportive of gun control than was the average public health researcher in our survey, so it is hard to believe that there wasn't bias at work in the selection of the panel's membership.

When you use other people's software you live in somebody else's dream.