Secondly, property emerges much earlier than any laws. Laws evolutionary are appearing much later, whenever property rights are by and large fixed and property relations are established and whenever central regulatory power (embryonic State entity) is strong enough in order to enforce those property rights and property relations.

Thirdly, extremely often in human history the lawful property is not entirely safe with its holder and can be easily expropriated or confiscated. Exactly because the law is merely reflecting the property relations at certain fixed point in time, it absolutely does not guarantee that a person will be able to keep his property at another point in time, say tomorrow. There are at least four possibilities how a person can loose (in full or in part) his property guaranteed by the law - first, as a result of legal, half-legal or even illegal actions of particular powerful individuals (for example mafia, medieval land barons, high-level state bureaucrats) directed at extortion of people’s property; second, as a result of peaceful changes in domestic laws (in consequence of nationalization or of tax raise, for example); third, as a result of external forcible expropriation (in consequence of war, for ex.); and fourth, as a result of domestic forcible expropriation (in consequence of social revolution or of civil war, for ex.). All these possibilities are based on the mechanisms of power and coercion - even peaceful changes in laws can be put into practice only relying upon the instruments of coercion, otherwise nobody will voluntarily give up his property even if coercion takes a form of law.

Law, thus, is merely a superficial written expression of property relations - expression correlated with the economic property rights. As a result of our educational prejudices and societal propaganda too many attention is drawn in the modern world to superiority of law, to “rule of law” and to the law and order generally. All that is definitely important and even essential, but all that is absolutely irrelevant to the nature and reasons of any social phenomenon, just like law is irrelevant for understanding of any economic phenomena or for economics as a science generally. Law is never a reason – it is always a consequence. It does not determine any social phenomenon or any social relation – it is merely marking current state of affairs in society down on paper. Law does not create anything – it merely more or less adequately reflects things.

If law and economy are not what determine property and property relations – then what does or where the definition of property comes from? It comes from power. Power is a single determinant of any property rights and of any property relations. Power is property (first of all literally and secondly because it can appropriate property if complemented by the mechanisms of coercion) and property (especially exclusive property) is power. Power is a foundation of the definition of property because of the three fundamental reasons.

First, power is allowing to appropriate, expropriate or to confiscate property outside of any economic activity in consequence of wars, revolutions, dictatorships, private property rights violations (crimes or sometimes even of in-law violations), of social property rights violations (forcible expropriations), etc.

Second, power is allowing to continuously realize exclusive (monopolistic) property rights based on the mechanisms of coercion within particular economic activity. This is a much more delicate and at the same time much more important and much more wide-scale manifestation of power. Forcible expropriations and redistributions of property not underlined by any economic activity is a very rough type of societal relations and though being enormously persistent throughout human history – it is not often encountered in modern days. Forcible expropriation of property is also a rather short-term or even one single time opportunity. Socially strong or powerful individuals quite soon start to recognize that they need much longer-term manifestations of their power in order to obtain and to hold their material benefits and privileges. A single possibility for that is the exclusive property rights or social monopolies based on power and coercion including such monopolies as for example slavery, feudalism and communism.

Third, power is allowing to hold (to own) the property. This is a very important manifestation of power - forgotten by the people today - especially by people in economically developed societies. We often imagine that our property is somehow automatically guaranteed to us by some supernatural half-mythical half-legendary force called "law". We already saw that it is not so. Only particular more civilized balance of power in modern economically developed society is more or less allowing us to securely hold property. And even that is a myth because coercive expropriations of our property are growing every year thanks to the nice phenomenon of taxation. We have simply traded obnoxious social conflicts with uncertain possibility of potential social revolts for permanently growing pay offs in order to keep less fitted and less able individuals fed and away from atrocious behavior or speaking otherwise we have exchanged occasional short-term threats of social conflicts, occasional minor violent property redistributions and unclear perspective of social revolutions for uncontrollable and permanently growing income redistributions until the definite collapse of our society in the future. Apart from all these, if we think about modern underdeveloped societies or about modern economically developed countries in historical retrospective, we can see that state extortions of property are often accompanied there by the threats of private extortions on behalf of powerful private individuals.

Coming from the origin of property appropriation, from economic, legal and power foundations of property rights as well as from definition and nature of property, we can identify two fundamental types of property rights - economic property rights and social property rights based on power and coercion. Economic property rights represent non-exclusive rights under which neither property possessions nor appropriated income are based on the instruments of coercion. Economic property rights are property rights in their common understanding - what people usually understand under the phenomenon of “property”. Both economic property rights and their proprietors normally are explicitly and abundantly defined by law.

On the contrary, social property rights represent exclusive rights under which both property possession and income appropriation are based upon the instruments of coercion. Exclusive property rights of slave-owners upon slaves, of feudal barons upon land, of communist party leaders upon the state under communism are the examples of social property rights. Social property rights presuppose that certain rights are unattainable for other people (other than their current proprietors) under the exchange transactions, that certain production resources are switched off from the free production factors’ flows and that a single way for their appropriation is social counteraction. Social property rights are purely informal and are rarely (almost never) fully reflected either in law or in other parts of social infrastructure. Vice-a-versa, law and social infrastructure are always trying to hide these rights in order to disallow sober apprehension of social realities and thus to diminish social counteraction to them. Therefore, law is general enough only in order to identify economic proprietors. In order to establish social proprietors of the property based on power and coercion we have to investigate how exactly mechanisms of coercion are stimulating exclusivity of this particular property rights and who is appropriating an exclusive income connected with this property. Probably this technique not always assures straightforward clear-cut answers, but there is no other way to determine concealed by social infrastructure proprietors of the exclusive property rights.