The “property question” is the constitutional question whether a society’s basic resources are to be publicly or privately owned; that is, whether these basic resources are to be available to private owners, perhaps subject to tax and regulation, or whether instead they are to be retained in joint public ownership, and managed by democratic processes.  James Madison’s approach represents a case in which prior holdings are taken for granted, and the property question itself is kept off of the political agenda.  By contrast, John Rawls approach abstracts from any actual pattern of holdings, while putting the property question on the political agenda, but at a particular place.  This paper compares and contrasts the two approaches.