5) Put simply the bundle of rights theory assumes that if a person holds all of the rights then she is the owner of the property.
13) The first section also argues that the dominant understanding of the bundle of rights theory is primarily concerned with the owner's use and control of his property, which is a definition better suited to private property rather than to common property.
56) The bundle of rights theory of property provides answers to these questions of access and use, but as we shall see, its current understanding relies on a bounded vision of property that isolates each piece of property from all others as far as possible, and that also overemphasizes the role of individual action in creating and maintaining property.
As such, the bundle of rights theory has, in some discussions of it, collapsed into a description of ownership, and thus property rights appear individualistic instead of relational (67) and emphasize the rights of owners above all else.
Penner criticized the bundle of rights theory because of its inability to do more than elaborate on "the scope of action that ownership provides," (69) or as Eric Claeys put it, "a right to exclude from the thing merely states a particular outcome.
The latter understanding of the ownership of common property would still cause problems under the bundle of rights theory because the theory does not recognize the potential for outside influences on the owner or the property.
McLachlin CJC's repeated emphasis on the government's use of property ignores the role that it has to play and, like the dominant understanding of the bundle of rights theory of property, (146) focuses on the owner rather than on the complex web of interests that surround most pieces of property.
Several property scholars have recognized that the bundle of rights theory often ignores the social aspects of property and have proposed solutions.
The bundle of rights theory of property suggests how the government as owner analogy appeared.