IS A GOVERNMENT PERMIT JUST AS MUCH OF A PROPERTY RIGHT AS A PATENT? (YOU KEEP CALLING IT A PROPERTY RIGHT, BUT I DON’T THINK IT MEANS WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS)

According to a quote from an opinion by Judge Posner in a recent case, a taxi medallion owner made this argument: a permit (granted by the government) to operate a taxi is a property right that can’t be taken away by the government without compensation.  
Judge Posner called that argument absurd, and I agree.  Just because the government (artificially and perhaps even arbitrarily) limits the number of permits doesn’t turn the permit into a property right.  
The judge also pointed out that a property right can be intangible, such as a patent, but that doesn’t mean that a government permit is a property right.  The easiest way I can think of to explain why a taxi operator’s permit is different from a patent is this: with a patent, the monopoly that’s being protected is my right to use my own idea; with the taxi operator permit, the monopoly (or oligopoly) is a restriction created by the government. 
You can read about the case at the Institute for Justice’s web site.  If you own a patent or some other type of intangible property right, like a copyrighted work, and want to talk about how to incorporate it you’re your estate plan, we can help.