Harm to Property

The notion of “property” entails the authority to use physical objects. Items are understood to belong to an “owner,” whether an individual or a group of individuals, who have control over their property and are entitled to use it. A person does not have an entitlement to the property of anyone else, except by permission of the owner.

This notion is much debated in politics, and while that is beyond the scope of this study, it stands to note that political systems also ascribe to the notion of property, whether it is the use of property by a governmental organization, or when the ownership is implicit in that the privilege of any citizen or class to use the property by permission of government. While I’d prefer to avoid digressing, I expect there will invariably arise an instance in which property is controlled by government, or in which the property of an individual is usurped by government (e.g., taxation), and will consider it further in that context.

For the present, my sense is that it can be taken as premise that an individual or organization claims certain items as “owned” and maintains the right to use them or grant permission for others to use them, and other parties are expected to acknowledge their ownership and refrain from doing harm to the property of others without explicit permission.

It’s also worth nothing that property is central to the notion of business, as the chief activities of business pertain not to action, but to property: obtaining property, using it, providing it to others) in exchange for other property), so I expect it is a topic of constant concern.

In the present context of doing harm, harm to property is derive from harm to person. To damage or destroy property is to diminish or eliminate the owner’s ability to act in the interests of serving their needs to which that property is requisite. For example, to destroy or taint food is to interfere with the owner’s ability to eat, which is in turn to do physical damage to the owner of property.