> One of them refers to tangible things, was first codified more than 5000 years ago, and is almost entirely uncontroversial

Which definition are you referring to?

Debts, wholly intangible legal fictions, have been treated as property for thousands of years.

▲

__MatrixMan__ an hour ago | parent [-]

I was thinking of the code of Hammurabi as the settled one, and membership in a trade guild--which you had to buy from the government--as the controversial one.

I wouldn't classify debt as an uncontroversial kind of property. In medieval Europe, Christians were prohibited from owning debt by their religions (Jews weren't, so they ended up being the lenders, which is probably why the stereotypes exist today).

I'd argue that the fungibility/resale of debt is a bad idea because it takes on weird properties when too much of it accumulates in one place.

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> was thinking of the code of Hammurabi

Do we have evidence around what the Code considered property? It seems to be vague [1]. (“Stealing” is applied to minor sons and slaves, for instance. And the terms “article” and named tangible items are used in some cases, while in others the translators chose the term property per se.)

> wouldn't classify debt as an uncontroversial kind of property

I wouldn’t either. I’m saying it’s old. And I wouldn’t say the concept of privately-owned land is “an uncontroversial kind of property” either, entire races had to be wiped out to consolidate that view.

[1] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

	▲	__MatrixMan__ 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah good point. There's a whole spectrum of applications of "property". People can and do fight over it, and consensus shifts with time. I think we can agree that data is at least not on the uncontroversial end of that spectrum. I guess I just don't see a meaningful difference between: "____ cannot be property" And "At some other place or time ____ might be property but as a participant in the consensus for this place and time I am proposing that we not allow ____ to be property" Its like rights. They only exist if you fight for them. Controversial notions of property are only legitimate if we let them be... so let's interfere with that legitimacy (and if we must, enforcement).