Private property/personal property question

[Skyhilist]

So quick question about the distinction between private and personal property.

Would something that contributes to property value, like say, someone's front yard, be considered private property or would it be considered personal property?

The reason I ask is that I know that of course if it's considered private property then the idea is to abolish it being private and make it something that is commonly owned. I was just reading something though from a different perspective though and they were trying to say, first of all that say, someone's yard, would be considered private property, and second of all that it's be a bad idea to make it commonly owned. The logic behind it was something along the lines of "what incentive do I have to take care of the land around my house if I don't even have ownership of it?"

Another thing also came to mind when I was thinking about this. When I was about 6 or 7 years old, there was a time where some teenage hooligans slid (after a rain) down a hill through my family's yard and completely wrecked it. It was all muddy and most of the grass was gone. Anyways basically, they ruined the yard completely to make a long story short. But since my parents obviously owned the yard they had the authority to tell the kids that they had to replant all the grass. It would seem as though if my parents hadn't controlled the lawn to begin with, the kids who ruined it wouldn't really have any incentive to help fix it. Obviously this is a more trivial example, but I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at. If the land, including people's lawns, were to be privately owned, would there be a way to prevent things like destruction of those yards by others, littering, etc.? Or at least would there be a way under communism that the people living in houses directly adjacent to such land could deal with such issues as effectively as they can now by saying "I own this land and so you can't be here"?

[#FF0000]

As I understand it, "private property" refers exclusively to "productive property". Items and land that you live on would certainly be personal property.

[Always Curious J]

It would seem as if #FF0000 pretty much answered it, but basically if you aren't exploiting workers on it, or using it for production than it is personal. However, and maybe this is just me, but I don't think it will be acceptable for one person to own a massive amount of land just because they aren't using it to make money. If people were to be allowed to own ridiculous amounts of land I could see it eventually becoming problematic as the land could be necessary for others to use as well and such. But anyways, as long as you aren't using it to make more money or exploiting workers it is personal property. Examples: Toothbrush=Personal Property Factory=Private Property House=Personal Property Large Farm=Private Property.

[KarlLeft]

The distinction between private and personal property is an important one. Sure, private property, from a leftist point of view, refers to ownership of the means of production like factories or oil refineries. But to the average American, abolishing private property means they don't get to own their own house, front yard, car or flat-screen TV. Naturally, this turns them off and they don't hear anything else you try to tell them!

At least that's the experience I've had in the past, talking to random people in bars. Guess it depends on the bar! :grin:

[ckaihatsu]

The "short version" can be all of the above, but for more in-depth conversations we shouldn't shy away from emphasizing that even the term 'property' would be a misnomer, and inaccurate.

In a social context of no private-profit accumulations, the social *practice* of 'property' would cease to exist, leaving everyone with the more-practical tasks of organizing productive activity at all scales, for the common good.