Some implications of William Blackstone's Biblical grounding of property rights for American jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1979 the Calgary Institute for the Humanities published a compilation of articles under the title, Theories of Property: Aristotle to the Present. The editors gathered sixteen writings on property stretching across centuries of academic literature. The articles included essays analysing the views of some of the great philosophers of the ages including Aquinas, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill, Hayek and Nozick. In this list of prominent philosophers on property rights, one absence is particularly notable. The contributions of William Blackstone, author of the monumental treatise on English law, remain unaddressed beyond a few definitional references and a brief section on Bentham's lifelong diatribe against Blackstone. Similarly, in Alan Ryan's 1984 self-claimed perusal of the career of private property as a central institution of western society, Blackstone's name appears rarely and only in contrast to the philosophers on which Ryan focuses. These philosophers include Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Mill and Marx. Enkele implikasies van William Blackstone se Bybelse begronding van die reg op eiendom vir die Amerikaanse regsleer In sy kommentaar op die Engelse gemenereg, verklaar die Engelse skrywer, William Blackstone, dat die reg op eiendom die emosies van die mensdom opwek en dat niks die verbeelding van mense aangryp soos die aansprake van individue op eiendom nie. Volgens Blackstone is die reg op eiendom in die natuurorde gegrondves, maar die wyse van beskerming van eiendomsreg en die oordrag daarvan word sosiaal bepaal. Die reg op eiendom vorm een van die sleutelregte volgens Blackstone. Hy wy 'n groot deel van sy kommentaar op die Engelse gemenereg aan die begronding daarvan, die beperkings wat regtens daarop geplaas mag word en die verpligtinge wat individue onderling jeens mekaar het. Hierdie opstel gee 'n oorsig van Blackstone se begronding van eiendomsreg en fokus veral op enkele aspekte van die onteiening van eiendom in die Amerikaanse reg en die voortgaande belang wat Blackstone se standpunte steeds in die verband het.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".