 It is the ius gentium, not natural law, that regulates the distribution of property and the enslavement of human beings. The immutable natural law, however, gives permission for these activities, because, after the Fall, the circumstances of its application changed dramatically, making an enforced regulation of possession necessary (see, e.g., Suárez, De legibus L I xvi 7). Although property—or dominium as it was called—is not part of human nature, according to the majority of Salamancan thinkers and their followers, there are many reflections by different authors arguing for the advantages of private property. Soto and Molina make direct use of Aristotelian and Thomist arguments, saying that common ownership would prevent men from working and from taking care of their things to the disadvantage of the common good (Soto-DII IV, 3; Molina-DII II, 19; see Chafuen 2003: 3–38). There are differences concerning the way in which dominium in this sense is bound by regulations from positive and natural law. Most authors, such as Vitoria, in his commentary on quaestio 66 in the Secunda secundae of the Summa theologiae, accepted the Thomist view that those in extreme need are entitled to take what is necessary for their survival. Martin de Azpilcueta (1491–1586), known as “Doctor Navarrus” or “Navarro”, however, held that there is no obligation to donate to those who are in extreme need and that anyone who receives such a donation must see it as a loan, not as something of his own (Chafuen 2003: 44).