What is a man's property? Anything which it is lawful for him, and for him alone, to use. But what rule have we, by which we can distinguish these objects? Here we must have recourse to statutes, customs, precedents, analogies, and a hundred other circumstances; some of which are constant and inflexible, some variable and arbitrary. But the ultimate point, in which they all professedly terminate, is the interest and happiness of human society. Where this enters not into consideration, nothing can appear more whimsical, unnatural, and even superstitious, than all or most of the laws of justice and of property.

...

It may appear to a careless view, or rather a too abstracted reflection, that there enters a like superstition into all the sentiments of justice; and that, if a man expose its object, or what we call property, to the same scrutiny of sense and science, he will not, by the most accurate enquiry, find any foundation for the difference made by moral sentiment. I may lawfully nourish myself from this tree; but the fruit of another of the same species, ten paces off, it is criminal for me to touch. Had I worn this apparel an hour ago, I had merited the severest punishment; but a man, by pronouncing a few magical syllables, has now rendered it fit for my use and service. Were this house placed in the neighbouring territory, it had been immoral for me to dwell in it; but being built on this side the river, it is subject to a different municipal law, and by its becoming mine I incur no blame or censure. The same species of reasoning it may be thought, which so successfully exposes superstition, is also applicable to justice; nor is it possible, in the one case more than in the other, to point out, in the object, that precise quality or circumstance, which is the foundation of the sentiment.

But there is this material difference between superstition and justice, that the former is frivolous, useless, and burdensome; the latter is absolutely requisite to the well-being of mankind and existence of society. When we abstract from this circumstance (for it is too apparent ever to be overlooked) it must be confessed, that all regards to right and property, seem entirely without foundation, as much as the grossest and most vulgar superstition. Were the interests of society nowise concerned, it is as unintelligible why another's articulating certain sounds implying consent, should change the nature of my actions with regard to a particular object, as why the reciting of a liturgy by a priest, in a certain habit and posture, should dedicate a heap of brick and timber, and render it, thenceforth and for ever, sacred1.

I agree with Hume:


An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Section III Part II
Online Library of Liberty - SECTION III.: of justice. - Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals

Thus, the rules of equity or justice depend entirely on the particular state and condition in which men are placed, and owe their origin and existence to that utility, which results to the public from their strict and regular observance.

Question:
Property is the object of Justice. Is Property the only object of Justice?

Comment:
Here is another excerpt from the sited text.

The particular state and condition in which men are placed changes, sometimes slowly and sometimes very quickly.
For example, during a time of crisis, e.g. hurricane disaster, economic disaster, war it changes very quickly.
In other cases the change is very gradual, over decades, perhaps over centuries. For example the rising population, or the accumulation of advancements in technology.

In both cases "the particular state and condition in which men are placed" has changed. This implies that the rules of justice and equity will likely require changing as well.

In the case of gradual changes, if the rules have not been adjusted along the way they may require an abrupt and seemingly extreme adjustment in order to catchup with the reality of "the particular state and condition".

Furthermore, a particular set of rules of equity and justice itself produces changes, usually slow changes: the accumulation of wealth by a particular class for example and the gradual accumulation of debt by a particular nation for another. These are gradual changes that were brought about by a particular set of rules of equity and justice themselves.

No, but that is the focus of his discussion of justice. Various other virtues are discussed in other places in his books.

Is property is the sole object of social justice? I mean it seems that the case for this could be made with a little finagling. On the other hand if there are other objects of justice then listing some of them might help to illustrate what type of thing property is.

Is property is the sole object of social justice? I mean it seems that the case for this could be made with a little finagling. On the other hand if there are other objects of justice then listing some of them might help to illustrate what type of thing property is.

I might not be understanding what you mean by object. Do you mean subject or goal?

Although some might be tempted to say, that one owns oneself, in most societies, it is a bit more complicated than that, as one may not sell oneself into slavery, but one may sell whatever property one lawfully owns (absent any "entailment" or lien, of course).

There are many answers to this question from Locke to Proudhon. I have yet to develop my own answer so I will take on the role of the questioner. I submit the question to the forum:

What is property?

Children were born to rights in the land that they could never dispose of...

when the commons were first closed is when poverty first became an issue, as a social issue with a name... Those people are lost to history...

Can you say a little more about the "closing of the commons". It sounds like a real turning point in history. I'm having some trouble finding more info about it.

I think property is a possession... an illusion. Some men think of their wives or their homes as their property which is ultimately an illusion. To think we can possess property or own property is also an illusion.

Property is something that is needed to satisfy the ego. The ego that becomes us is identified through properties. That property can be in the form of a spouse, a car, a house, a church, a forum, anything and everything that is external to ourselves including our body. The ego identifies with property and builds upon it. Property clothes the ego, disguises it and dresses it. We use property to describe ourselves and our ego and to fill in the blanks or empty spaces.

Property is the illusion we live in. Thinking that we own and posses and these things are our property and in that property we seek and find identification. Property is used to describe who we are and our status quo. The more property we have the more powerful we feel and the more we identify with it.

Property is an illusion of our ego. We live in this illusion and die with it. After we die, that property is no longer ours is it? Our possessions our ego all that we thought we were dies with it and we go on realizing that we are not our ego and we are not our property and that we cannot really possess any property.

There are many ways of looking at. I've chosen one. Ultimately though, property is used to describe something possessed and owned by an ego or a group of egos because in the divine, there is no such thing as property. It's a word.

Property = Ego = Identification = Who I am = What I am = Detachment = Faith = Ego = Illusion

...
So Property is a Right and as a Right it is among the objects of Justice (i.e. other rights). Other Rights include life and liberty, though contrary to Locke, I believe Hume was less inclined to call these rights 'inalienable'. (Pyrrho?)

You mentioned selling property one lawfully owns. Does this include selling ones labor. Is labor property? Or is labor something else?