The ownership model is captured in Jonathan Larson's play Rent (1996) when the landlord, Benny, says that "the owner of that lot next door has the right to do with it as he pleases." This idea is commonplace in American culture and has a strong intuitive appeal. However:

It is exactly this "ownership model" which Singer challenges in his book, and he calls it misleading and morally defective. Fundamentally, this model rejects the idea that ownership of property includes an aspect of obligation. Obligations imply limits on one's ability to use property, but the ownership model regards limits as exceptions rather than inherent or necessary.

The ownership model of property comes with a number of contradictions and problems, one of the most important of which is the fact that it decries regulation of property, but the distinctions between regulatory and deregulatory laws are not clean and clear enough:

Zoning laws are one example of this ambiguity. Clearly, they regulate property in that they tell owners that certain uses of their land are excluded. But people who own residential homes normally welcome good zoning laws, because they keep the value of that residential property from falling. Zoning laws are a case which should demonstrate that, in many cases, property requires laws and regulations for it to have any meaning.

Another case is the fee tails which used to exist. Fee tails were created to limit transference of property title: when someone attached a fee tail to property, they prevented future owners from transfering the property outside of the family. Fee tails were thus used to ensure family dynasties and keep property ownership limited to fewer families.

Obviously, eliminating fee tails took away some traditional ownership rights. On the other hand, their elimination widened the ability of people in the future to become owners and increased the options which owners had in selling property. It is important to note that their elimination also helped increase the distribution of power in society, because the maintenance of a few dynastic families did not simply keep property in their hands, it also kept social, political and economic power in their hands.

Anti-discrimination laws have a similar effect. They regulate a person's ability to use their property by requiring them to accept minorities as customers in their place of business, but at the same time it ensures that those minorities have access to property in the first place. After all, if you cannot buy property, you cannot become a property owner. Fee tails and anti-discrimination laws represent efforts to ensure that property ownership becomes as wide as possible rather than remaining limited to particular families or races.

Singer makes two fundamental points about property which bring the ownership model into question. First is the common idea property comes with a pre-determined bundle of rights. Singer argues the contrary, that certain rights do not have to stay bundled together. They can instead be disagregated, with some rights being denied to anyone and some being granted to non-owners.

Second is the common idea that property is about relations between people and things. Singer argues instead that property is about relationships between some people and other people - owners and non-owners. Possession of property creates obligations which others have towards owners, but also on the part of owners towards others in society.

While these two points call the ownership model into question, they also provide a way for us to understand the three examples of regulation above (zoning, fee tails, and anti-discrimination laws). In each case, certain traditional ownership rights are removed from the bundle, but the reason is the obligation which property owners have towards the rest of society.

By itself, the traditional ownership model cannot makes sense of those examples because it employs an absolutist language and ideology. That, then, is one of the reasons why the ownership model needs to be replaced or augmented by a more nuanced understanding of what property is and what role it should play in society. Continuing to use it can prevent us from taking the necessary steps in regulation which will improve human social relations.

A property claim is a claim to own, to control, to master, to rule a part of the world. But owners do not live alone, and we no longer like the sound of monarchy. Because property rights may conflict - both with other property rights and with personal rights - we cannot sensibly understand or shape property law without attending to the effects of recognizing a particular individual entitlement.

Singer offers no final answers designed to solve all of our problems. He doesn't pretend to have the key or a perfect ideology. What he does do, however, is ask the right sorts of questions which should cause people to reconsider their usual assumption about property and property rights. Property is normally viewed as something impersonal, but Singer places property in the web of human relationships, arguing that it exists to serve human needs:

Singer never uses the words "humanism," but what he presents is a very humanistic perspective on the nature of property and the social relationships which property engenders. On the other hand, he pose a real challenge for libertarians who normally follow the ownership model almost uncritically.

Libertarians generally regard property rights as the most fundamental, and Singer probably would not disagree. He argues, however, that they aren't the only valid interests to consider, and more importantly, that there aren't any easy answers when it comes to resolving property conflicts.

Singer's book isn't always easy to read and is aimed more for an audience of law students than the general public. Nevertheless, his writing isn't arcane and is generally quite engaging. He makes use of many practical examples from actual court cases to illustrate his points, and anyone wishing to invest a little time will come away better for it. This is easily one of the best books I've read over the past year, and I recommend it highly.