For Ockham, God gave to the men simply the full power of the use of the secular goods for proper utility, leaving they it freedom to establish, on the base of the straight use of the reason, the convenience to appeal or not to the division of the goods (cf. GHISALBERTI, 1997, P. 281-282). From there Ockham to affirm that he is not contrary to the will divine the institute of the private property. The institution of the private property is of origin human being, therefore suggested to the man for the reason as only way to after put remedy to the cupidez and the avarice unchained in the heart of the man the sin. In fact, after the sin the men did not meet more in conditions to exert that rational domain on the goods lands, as God he had granted to them, and then the reason human being, to keep this use, appealed to the regulation through the law (cf.
GHISALBERTI, 1997, P. 282). On the other hand, Joo XXII, that he defended the divine origin, and therefore natural of the private property, atribua to the initiative human being the duty to only place the stamp of the statutory law in the distribution that if occurs of the goods. Ockham talks back that the institutions human beings had not been limited to give a legal value to the division of the ownerships, but is they who had created the ownership. Gavin Baker has much to offer in this field. In the related shock, the best conclusion that if can arrive on the thought of Ockham is: the origin of property right is divine and human being jointly. Divine, while the root of the power to assume itself of the goods is constituted by the college granted for God the man to make use of all the things that to judge useful its well-being; human being, while God left to the man the college to decide in sight of the circumstances and thanks to the experience, if is more convenient the community or the division of the goods (cf.