Best property law books according to redditors

My property professor worked with several others from different universities to create an open source property textbook, available for free in a pdf. If you wanted it in hard copy, as I did, it was the cost of the printing.

Open Source Property Spring 2019 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1729562140/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ARaBDbEP0YGQY

It's the cheapest textbook I've ever gotten.

Further Reading

Michael Huermer - 'The Problem of Political Authority':

[Hard Copy]

Henry Hazlitt - 'Economics in One Lesson':

[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

David Friedman - 'The Machinery of Freedom'"

[Illustrated Summary]:[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Ludwig von Mises - 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth':

[Audiobook]:[PDF]:[ePub]


MisesWiki - Economic Calculation Problem:

[HTML]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'For a New Liberty':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'The Ethics of Liberty':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Frédéric Bastiat - 'The Law':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF]:[Hard Copy]

Ludwig von Mises - 'Human Action':

[Audiobook]:[HTML]:[PDF:[ePub]:[Hard Copy]

Murray N. Rothbard - 'Man Economy and State, with Power, and Markets':

[Audiobook][HTML]:[PDF]:[ePub]:[Hard Copy]

> Public housing just isn't very big in the US

I have to disagree with the characterization here. I'm not sure we can just look at a number in a vacuum and say that the policy impact is small based on our intuition.

In 1979, there were 1,204,718 public housing units against a population of about 77,330,000 households in the U.S. That's 1 public housing unit per 64 families in the United States, and one per every 28 families that rent. By 1993, that number had dropped to 1 unit per 69 families and today that number is a little less than 1 for every 95, 1 for every 43 families that rent. That's a 31% decrease in the number of available public housing units on a per capita basis in about two generations. That's a pretty drastic cutback.

At the same time, the number of total private housing units being created was, with some ups and downs surprisingly flat from the late 50s through the mid 2000s, despite the fact that the number of households in the market more than doubled over that same period. And over the last 12 years, housing production has been way below previous benchmarks.

It seems to me a substantial reduction in public housing aimed at the most vulnerable households combined with a roughly flat (I would argue falling) production of new private units would have a pretty substantial bottom-up impact on the housing market.

>Restrictive zoning has banned us from building the sort of places we used to build.

I also want to point out that I agree with this sentiment broadly, but the two theories are not mutually exclusive. As a tremendous number of Americans have a tremendous amount of wealth tied up in their homes, they have an extremely strong political incentive to fight anything and everything in their community which would have an unpredictable impact on their housing values, including new dense construction.

Isn't there something to the idea that systematically commodifying housing and then reducing the supply of social housing causing prices to increase overall would have a double-barrelled impact on newly formed households across the income spectrum? These new planning restrictions didn't just come out of nowhere - there was a political constituency that wanted them.

I am vegan and have experienced varied reactions firsthand.

Typically, when people confront me or ask about being vegan I point out that studies show that veganism can be healthy. So choosing not to be vegan is an ethical choice where you are weighing animal interests and environmental consequences against your own pleasure and convenience. That's normally seen as pretty reasonable, so I don't get too much attitude (unless I'm on the internet), but I do get some rude dismissals.

I think people have a prototypical vegan in their minds who is some sort of new age hippie. So, for the skeptic community, there's going to be some resistance. Throw in some trumped up claims of dietary perfection and you've got reasons for skeptics to be turned off from both sides.

Like all communities, there are vegans who could use some education. I used to talk about the China Study a lot, until someone pointed out the problems to me. Now, I use evidence about how being vegan can be healthy, but never present it as some miracle diet.

Like the vegan community, I think the skeptic community would do well to check out some people that talk about the ethics of animal use without involving bad science or hippie stuff. Gary Francione is a good example of one of those people.

So, I didn't really answer the question yet. I do think it's unreasonable how some vegans are treated, but the vegans who are in to good science and good ethics need to be better at messaging and speaking out. The skeptic community should see people who are being misled by bad information as people that need to be informed, not mocked and dismissed. Additionally, I think people who are interested in rational inquiry and truth seeking, should look into the legitimate reasons for being vegan instead of dismissing the whole idea because they've ran into some vegans that they didn't like.

In my experience, there are a lot of omnivores that don't like being called out for their lifestyle choices. Even when I'm not discussing being vegan with someone, just existing around them can be accidentally confrontational. Most people don't want to hurt animals, but they've been taught and reinforced to themselves that it's necessary or it's okay. By existing as a vegan, I point out that it's not necessary and I don't think it's okay to use animals. People have a bad reaction to having that thrown into the light because most people want to believe they are good people who would not hurt animals unless it was necessary.

If you want the long answer, I recommend this book: Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law. It's actually very readable. The author specifically talks about the Olympics and the NFL.

Basically, they have no standing. They are overstating their rights as trademark holders. In trademark disputes, there are very specific criteria that have to be met for a violation to have occurred. They have to prove that misuse of a trademark led to actual confusion of consumers (ie, by surveying a large sample of them) and correlate it to a actual substantial economic loss. They wouldn't win these cases if they tried, but they don't need to. The threat is enough.

If the NFL were to bring a lawsuit against someone, they could prolong it to the point of bankrupting anyone they might want.

Supplements aren't essential, but they can be one of many tools you use. I rely heavily on supplements and have done very well in law school. Here are the one's I used for those courses:

Civil Procedure: The Glannon Guide and the E&E (also by Glannon).

Criminal Law: Understanding Criminal Law by Dressler.

Property: Understanding Property by Sprankling and Siegel's Property.

If I understand the objection correctly, you are asking whether the Takings Clause just means that the government can take property for whatever reason they want, so long as they pay compensation. This theory has been advanced by one or two legal scholars and by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens (after he retired from the bench). But it's at odds with over 200 years of precedent, and also the original meaning of the Constitution. I discuss this question in more detail in chapter 2 of my book The Grasping Hand: https://www.amazon.com/Grasping-Hand-London-Limits-Eminent/dp/022642216X/

Just finished a law degree in England, so I can give you the resources I used. Webb and Akkouh's book on trusts is relatively short and quite a good introduction. Parker and Mellow's book goes into more detail, but is older, so a bit outdated in parts. I never used Virgo's book but it was recommended to me by quite a few people. If you want the "authoritative" textbook then you'll probably want Megarry and Wade, but it's rather dense and may be too much for your purposes.

There have been a few pretty influential trusts cases in the past couple of years (including a rather important one overturning 120 years of law just this morning!) so you won't just be able to rely on any of these books absolutely, but I assume you're familiar with this if you're doing a masters.

With the Cambridge Analytica bit, you are completely glossing over social engineering. No, I arcinva, as a singular unique individual do not matter to big data corporations; however, I as a member of a demographic group do. And these companies and governments is this information on us as a group to drive their own agendas.

And your bit about, "Well, by golly, all you have to do is give up the Internet!", is so flippant, disingenuous, and once again glosses right over the important facts. In modern life, it is damn near impossible to forego all internet usage. These companies, and the government, all but blackmail you to follow along. From the DMV charging more to go into a location to do your business to grocery stores charging ridiculous prices without one of their cards, our arms are virtually twisted every single day to go along.

And, lastly, the bit about companies not being able to use your personal info without your permission. It's not a black or white issue. For example, some retail stores use IMSI trackers to track your movements through the store without asking for or receiving permission from you to do so. Scale this up to a company providing this service to multiple retail chains and, suddenly, not only can one store see where I go within it bit can now buy the data about where I went as soon as I left their store. Oh, and of course, they can also logically tie my movements in the store to my store shopper card, and the credit card I used at checkout... Which now ties my mobile identity to my real identity. So now the bank and credit card corporation can not just see what I purchase where, but follow my physical movements in the real world. Again, I may not matter to them as an individual but as a data point, all that information is insanely dangerous. We are genuinely hurtling towards Orwellian territory here.

I suggest you check out the book Owned by Joshua Fairfield.

Owned: Property, Privacy, And The New Digital Serfdom https://www.amazon.com/dp/1316612201/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_aaR5CbX6YCPRZ

I think a good starting point would be this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Property-Margaret-Davies/dp/1904385842

or this one:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0521130603

Without getting too philosophical - rights can be eternal and universal from a moral perspective, of course. But you need to invoke this concept exactly because the effective positive law (the one enforced by state institutions) sadly does not always follow the principles so expressed.

Elections in democracies broadly speaking give one vote to every person (more or less at least). Unless you build a fully Sybil-resistant blockchain system with one vote per person you can't replicate this. Also elections aren't "forks" - they _generally_ don't leave behind a "UK classic". This is important because - as we see in the BC universe all the time - it removes the uncertainty about the relative success of the two branches and guarantees (within reason) that all will be bound by the majority consensus. This is jut off the top of my mind so may very well be missing an important aspect!

My casebooks this semester on Amazon below. Note that rental prices are probably lower than they usually are this late into the semester.

Generally, casebooks are ~$200+ new. I probably spend $50 per casebook to rent them.

Legislation and Regulation, Cases and Materials (University Casebook Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634606477/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_VKKVCbYFK1H1B

Tort Law and Alternatives: Cases and Materials (University Casebook Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1634593006/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_gLKVCbRQ8X98Q

Property: Principles and Policies (University Casebook Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1628101024/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_HLKVCbQGDX5A0

Are you familiar with Frederic Bastiat's short monograph The Law, and, if so, what are your opinions on it?

The Constitution: An Introduction is a great book. One of my law professors wrote it with his son (started while the son was in high school, finished when the son was in college). It's relatively short and intended to be, basically, a primer on the why, how, and what of the constitution. It's written for the intelligent but the non-legal person, and Prof. Paulsen is a wonderfully engaging speaker (which comes across in his witty writing). I seriously loved this book. I cannot oversell it for non-nerdy people, but I'm a nerd like that who gets really excited about accessible and exceptional information.

That being said, if you're trying to get informed politically, you'll need to understand economics. Every law affects economics in some way (modification of behavior is an economic issue). People elsewhere have provided some good sources for binary partisan (i.e., bi-partisan) perspectives, but I'm also going to suggest some non-binary thinkers and economists.

The following are relatively short and more entertaining while still exceptional introductions to economic issues (and therefore political issues):
The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics by P. J. O’Rourke This one is hilarious and informative; and Free to Choose, the book or the 10-part video series. Also, check out Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. I don't have specific books for them.

Good luck, and happy reading! I've learned that so much of getting informed is talking (actually talking, not just texting or typing in online forums) to process issues. Welcome to the journey.


EDIT: formatting, because I've never posted with hyperlinked sources before. :-)

This is the Volokh Conspiracy blog. They have nothing to do with Reason Magazine other than being the current webhost. Ilya Somin is one of the premier experts in this area and has written extensively on Kelo v. New London and other cases.

I aced property in law school. Property Q&A was a lifesaver for helping me understand and master future interests and the RAP.

I was searching for this "new science of numbers", but every google result is just this book. I'm surprised there are so many spam sites trying to sell access to PDFs.

I'm more surprised that... there's a copy for $15 on Amazon!

https://www.amazon.com/Wellss-lawyer-United-States-form-book/dp/B00085HJ8I/

Looking for Introduction to Property Law in Australia - By Robert Chambers

Prop 11 does not make eminent domain go away, but apparently limits eminent domain to takings for governmental use only, and not for use by private developers. Won't stop the Feds, but it should stop state and local governements from robbing Peter as a gift to Paul. To understand its importance, read "Bulldozed" by Carla Main.

http://www.amazon.com/Bulldozed-Kelo-Eminent-Domain-American/dp/1594031932

YES PLEASE! Thank you ENDLESSLY!

https://www.amazon.ca/Intellectual-Property-Law-Copyright-Trade-Marks/dp/1552212092/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1538937209&sr=1-1&keywords=intellectual+property+law+vaver

https://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Contracts-Brian-Blum/dp/1454868414/ref=dp_ob_title_bk (7th Edition)

​

https://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanations-Property-Barlow-Burke/dp/145485006X (5th Edition)

​

https://www.amazon.com/Emanuel-CrunchTime-Property-Steven-L/dp/1454870222 (5th Edition)

​

https://www.amazon.com/Emanuel-CrunchTime-Contracts-Steven-L/dp/1454870176/ (6th Edition)

​

Not an outline, but an amazing resource. It case briefs every case in the text. The beginning has a giant flow/organization chart. I use the kindle version, but know people who got the book.

ISBN-13: 978-1454847946

Casenotes Legal Briefs: Property, Keyed to Singer, Berger, Davidson, and Penalver (Casenote Legal Briefs).

http://www.amazon.com/Casenotes-Legal-Briefs-Property-Davidson/dp/1454847948/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

This

This

This

This