DOCSLIB.ORG

Me, Myself & Mine: the Scope of Ownership

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Me, Myself & Mine: the Scope of Ownership ME, MYSELF & MINE The Scope of Ownership _________________________________ PETER MARTIN JAWORSKI _________________________________ May, 2012 Committee: Fred Miller (Chair) David Shoemaker, Steven Wall, Daniel Jacobson, Neil Englehart ii ABSTRACT This dissertation is an attempt to defend the following thesis: The scope of legitimate ownership claims is much more narrow than what Lockean liberals have traditionally thought. Firstly, it is more narrow with respect to the particular claims that are justified by Locke’s labour- mixing argument. It is more difficult to come to own things in the first place. Secondly, it is more narrow with respect to the kinds of things that are open to the ownership relation. Some things, like persons and, maybe, cultural artifacts, are not open to the ownership relation but are, rather, fit objects for the guardianship, in the case of the former, and stewardship, in the case of the latter, relationship. To own, rather than merely have a property in, some object requires the liberty to smash, sell, or let spoil the object owned. Finally, the scope of ownership claims appear to be restricted over time. We can lose our claims in virtue of a change in us, a change that makes it the case that we are no longer responsible for some past action, like the morally interesting action required for justifying ownership claims. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Much of this work has benefited from too many people to list. However, a few warrant special mention. My committee, of course, deserves recognition. I’m grateful to Fred Miller for his many, many hours of pouring over my various manuscripts and rough drafts. I’m similarly grateful to Steven Wall, David Shoemaker, Dan Jacobson, and Neil Englehart who round out my committee. Jonathan Miller, while not on my committee, effectively functioned like a member. Terrence Watson commented on every part of this dissertation, and was a sounding-board for all of the ideas contained within. David Faraci also listened patiently, and helped me sort out many arguments, especially on the topic of ownership, guardianship and stewardship, the section on the no-new-reasons condition of ownership in particular. Jacob Sparks and Mark Herman were lovely people who listened very patiently and helped out whenever they could. As did Mark Wells. Many of my students, but in particular those in my upper-year seminar entitled “Property, Persons, and Things,” let me talk about my dissertation frequently, and helped me get clearer on the arguments that had holes. The various students who made up our dissertation group, including Ben Dyer, Christoph Hanish, Nico Maloberti, Sangeeta Sangha, Brandon Byrd, Pam Philips, and so on, all played some role in helping me make my arguments, and improved my dissertation a great deal. I have conferenced several chapters of my dissertation. I am grateful to Mara from the University of Chicago whose comments at the Midwest Political Science Conference were thorough and very helpful. Students at the College of Wooster, Aaron Novick and Sean Hunter in particular, spent a great deal of time talking with me about my dissertation, and helping it become better. Garrett Thomson and Ronald Hustwit at the College were also significantly involved, and lent their ear every time I came up with what I thought was a good idea (I wasn’t always wrong about the evaluation). Pete Boettke, Pete Leeson, Chris Coyne, and Tyler Cowen at George Mason University gave several helpful comments when they invited me to give a talk for their workshop in Politics, Philosophy & Economics. I’m afraid I don’t remember the name of the philosopher who spent a great deal of time talking to me about my dissertation when I presented at the University of Warwick. Her comments led to more than a few changes, and I’m afraid she’ll have to be anonymous, in spite of the debt of gratitude that I owe her. The first part has benefited a great deal from Roland Hall, editor at the Journal of Locke Studies. The last part benefited from two anonymous referees at Ethics who, while ultimately rejecting my paper for publication, still thought there was something important there worth commenting upon at great length. The final part was written while I was a Summer Research Fellow with the Institute for Humane Studies. Their support was critical. William Glod not only guided me through that part of my dissertation, but provided valuable commentary on many parts of this dissertation besides. He iv didn’t have to, it was supererogatory, and so I’m deeply grateful. A draft of the final part of my dissertation was thoroughly looked over by many people, including Marya Schechtman who was under no obligation to spend as much time as she did helping a student from some other school do work on something that was not her own, and to provide enormously helpful comments and encouragement. It’s people like Marya who remind me why I want to be a philosopher more than anything else. I am also grateful to my family, my sister Agata in particular, for patiently humouring me. My sister was eager to read what I had written, and she offered much in the way of criticism, commentary, and words of encouragement. She’s a good egg, that one. All of the above, in fact, are good eggs. It is traditional to suggest that all errors are the fault of the author, that anything that is good is the result of some collaboration and some comments from people who helped a great deal. That’s traditional, but it’s surely false. What’s true is that what is good and what is bad in this dissertation is the result not only of me, but of a great number of people who either stepped in when they should have, or did not step in when, really, they should have. I put in a lot of labour, but so did others. I take full ownership for this work, good and bad, but the genesis, progression, and particular details of the ideas contained within are anyone’s guess, really. v CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. 2 PART 1 THE METAPHYSICS OF LOCKE’S LABOUR VIEW 1. THE LABOUR VIEW . 4 2. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES . 7 2.1 THE SHALLOW LABOUR VIEW . 13 2.1.1 THE STRONG IDENTITY CLAIM . 13 2.1.2 THE WEAK IDENTITY CLAIM . 15 2.2 THE DEEP LABOUR VIEW . 16 2.2.1 PURPOSE . 17 2.2.2 VALUE/PRODUCTIVITY . 17 2.2.3 PROJECTS . 21 2.2.4 TRANSFER . 26 3. FURTHER OBJECTIONS . 30 3.1. ATTENDING TO Q . 33 3.1.1. THE RECIPROCITY CLAIM . 36 3.1.2. THE EMPATHY CLAIM . 36 3.1.3. THE ENFORCEMENT CLAIM . 37 3.2. THE CARBON-COPY IMMEDIATE REPLACER . 38 4. CONCLUSION . 40 vi 4.1. WHAT’S LEFT OF THE LABOUR VIEW? . 42 PART 2 OWNERSHIP, GUARDIANSHIP, STEWARDSHIP 5. RES NULLA . 44 5.1. THE PUZZLE . 46 5.2. MISSION & METHOD . 47 5.3. HONORE’S ACCOUNT AS A BUNDLE . 50 6. NO NEW REASONS . 54 6.1 LIABILITY & THE DUTY OF CARE . 56 6.2 RISK . 60 6.3 INCREASING RISK . 63 7. SELF-OWNERSHIP . 69 7.1 THE CIRCULARITY PROBLEM . 71 7.2 CLEARER CONCEPTUAL CONFUSIONS . 72 7.3 SOVEREIGNTY . 75 8. GUARDIANSHIP . 77 8.1 THE PARENT-CHILD RELATION . 81 8.1.1. TENURE OVER CHILDREN COMES WITH DUTIES . 83 8.1.1.1. “OWNING” CHILDREN IS DISTURBING . 86 8.1.2. MARKET-ALIENABILITY . 87 8.1.3. SELF-SEEKINGNESS . 91 vii 8.1.4. THE LIBERTY TO DESTROY . 92 8.2. GUARDIANSHIP . 93 8.3. OBJECTION: GENERAL BACKGROUND DUTIES . 95 9. STEWARDSHIP . 100 9.1. CULTURAL ARTIFACTS . 102 9.2. WHY CARE ABOUT ORIGINALS? . 107 9.2.1. FIRSTNESS: CITY OF ATLANTIS . 112 9.2.2. INDEPENDENT DISCOVERY: OBSCURE ARTIST . 113 9.2.3. INFLUENCE: MIRRORVERMEER . 115 9.3. CONCLUSION . 118 PART 3 THE PROBLEM OF THE CONTINUITY OF CLAIMS 10. OWNERSHIP OVER TIME . 120 10.1. THE BROADEST POSSIBLE FORMULA . 121 10.2. MOTIVATING THE PROBLEM . 123 10.2.1. RESPONSIBILITY . 124 10.3. THE OPTIONS . 127 10.3.1. MORALLY-RELEVANT METAPHYSICAL UNITS . 127 10.4. IDENTITY-RELEVANT VIEWS (VIEWS TRACKING IDENTITY) . 131 10.4.1. IDENTITY OF LIVING HUMAN BEING VIEW . 132 10.4.2. THE IDENTITY OF PERSONS VIEW . 135 10.4.3. THE IDENTITY OF SELVES VIEW . 138 viii 11. JUSTICE IN TRANSFER . 143 11.1. VIEWS TRACKING JUSTICE IN TRANSFER . 143 11.2. THE TACIT TRANSFER . 145 11.2.1. THE CONDITIONAL TRANSFER . 147 11.3. THE INHERITANCE VIEW . 150 12. INHERITANCE . 153 12.1. MY DEATH AND MY STUFF . 153 12.2. SYMMETRY OF HARM . 160 12.3. HARMS & WRONGINGS . 162 12.3.1. BACK TO THE INHERITANCE VIEW . 163 13. VIEWS TRACKING SOMETHING OTHER THAN RESPONSIBILITY . 165 14. CONCLUSION . 166 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 169 1 ME, MYSELF & MINE: THE SCOPE OF OWNERSHIP We teach them not to notice the different senses of the possessive pronoun, the finely graded differences that run from "my boots" through "my dog", "my servant", "my wife", "my father", "my master" and "my country", to "my God". They can be taught to reduce all these senses to that of "my.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two Generations of Scandinavian Legal Realists
    62 RETFÆRD ÅRGANG 32 2009 NR. 1/124 Two Generations of Scandinavian Legal Realists CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto JOHAN STRANG Johan Strang Abstract: The discussion on the implications of Scandinavian Legal Realism would benefit con- siderably from more careful historical attention to the different political and philosophical ambi- tions of the theoreticians that followed Axel Hägerström. The scholars, who were later gathered under the label Scandinavian Legal Realism, did not represent a static theoretical position that remained unchanged from the 1910s to the 1950s; rather, their aims and ambitions varied with changing political and philosophical circumstances. The purpose of this article is to propose a distinction between two generations of Scandinavian Legal Realists. While the goal of the first generation (Vilhelm Lundstedt and Karl Olivecrona) fell little short of revolutionising the field of jurisprudence, transforming law into a vehicle for political and social reform, one of the main objectives of the second generation (Alf Ross and Ingemar Hedenius) was to take the edge off the radicalism of their predecessors. Key Words: Scandinavian Legal Realism; politics, democracy; Uppsala philosophy; logical em- piricism; Alf Ross; Ingemar Hedenius If Scandinavian Legal Realism could be reduced to one basic tenet, the idea that the law is a social phenomenon ultimately relying only on the sanction of man himself would be one prominent candidate. This was a basic line of thought for the founder of the school, Axel Hägerström (1868-1939), as well as for his followers Vilhelm Lundstedt (1882-1955), Karl Olivecrona (1897-1980), Alf Ross (1899-1979) and Ingemar Hedenius (1908-1982).
    [Show full text]
  • Political Science 270 Mechanisms of International Relations
    Political Science 270 Mechanisms of International Relations Hein Goemans Course Information: Harkness 337 Spring 2016 Office Hours: Wed. 2 { 3 PM 16:50{19:30 Wednesday [email protected] Meliora 203 The last fifteen years or so saw a major revolution in the social sciences. Instead of trying to discover and test grand \covering laws" that have universal validity and tremendous scope| think Newton's gravity or Einstein's relativity|the social sciences are in the process of switch- ing to more narrow and middle-range theories and explanations, often referred to as causal mechanisms. Recently, however, a new so-called \behavioral" approach { often but not always complementary { is currently sweeping the field. Since mechanisms remain the core theoretical building blocks in our field, we will continue to focus on them. In the bulk of this course students will be introduced to a range of such causal mechanisms with applications in international relations. Although these causal mechanisms can loosely be described in prose, explicit formalization { e.g., math { allows for a much deeper and richer understanding of the phenomena of study. In other words, formalization enables simplification and thus a better understanding of what is \really" going on. To set us on that path, we begin with some very basic rational choice fundamentals to introduce you to formal models in a rigorous way to show the power and potential of this approach. In other words, there will be some *gasp* Algebra. For much of the very brief but essential introduction to game theory we will use William Spaniel's Channel (http://gametheory101.com/courses/game-theory-101/, also on YouTube), as well as his cheap but very highly rated introductory book Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook available at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com).
    [Show full text]
  • H.L.A. Hart and the Hermeneutic Turn in Legal Theory
    SMU Law Review Volume 52 Issue 1 Article 17 1999 H.L.A. Hart and the Hermeneutic Turn in Legal Theory Brian Bix Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Brian Bix, H.L.A. Hart and the Hermeneutic Turn in Legal Theory, 52 SMU L. REV. 167 (1999) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol52/iss1/17 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. H.L.A. HART AND THE HERMENEUTIC TURN IN LEGAL THEORY Brian Bix* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 167 II. BACKGROUND ......................................... 168 III. HART'S HERMENEUTIC TURN ....................... 171 A. THE VALUE OF ADDING AN INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE.. 172 B. THE INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE AS "HERMENEUTIC"....... 176 C. DETAILS WITHIN HART'S APPROACH .................. 177 D. INTERNAL ASPECTS AND MORAL NEUTRALITY ........ 178 E. VARIATIONS OF "EXTERNAL" .. ......................... 179 F. THE O PPOSITION ...................................... 180 G. OVERALL CONTEXT: THE PROJECT OF CONCEPTUAL A NA LYSIS ............................................. 182 IV. SUGGESTED REFINEMENTS BY RAZ AND FINNIS. 183 A . JOSEPH R AZ .......................................... 183 B . JOHN FINNIS .......................................... 184 V. HILL AND PERRY ON THE INTERNAL ASPECT AND THEORETICAL METHODOLOGY .............
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent and Loyalty As Bases of Legitimate Political Authority
    ! ! ! ! Consent!and!Loyalty!as!Bases!of!Legitimate! Political!Authority! ! ! by! Jason!Grant!Allen!! B.A.!&!LL.B.!(Hons)!(University!of!Tasmania)!! LL.M.!(Universität!Augsburg)! Grad.!Dip.!Leg.!Prac.!(College!of!Law!Australia)! School!of!Law! ! ! ! ! ! ! Submitted!in!fulfilment!of!the!requirements!for!the!Master!of!Laws! University!of!Tasmania!July!2013! This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge no material previously published or written by any other person except where due acknowledgment is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringes copyright. All translations are my own, except as otherwise noticed. This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). J.G. Allen July 2013 i Dedicated in gratitude to my mother Sincere thanks to my supervisors, Professor Gino Dal Pont and Mr. Michael Stokes, to whom I will remain indebted for their help and guidance at all stages of this project. I have benefited greatly from their criticism and encouragement as needed. The errors that remain despite these efforts are no reflection on their engagement as supervisors. ii CONTENTS TABLE OF CASES iv TABLE OF STATUTES v REFERENCES vi INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER ONE Genuine Consent as an Act of Meaningful Choice Introduction 4 The Consent Theory of Political
    [Show full text]
  • ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN INTERVENTIONS in DEMOCRATIC THEORY by BRIAN CARL BERNHARDT B.A., James Madison University, 2005 M.A., University of Colorado at Boulder, 2010
    BEYOND THE DEMOCRATIC STATE: ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN INTERVENTIONS IN DEMOCRATIC THEORY by BRIAN CARL BERNHARDT B.A., James Madison University, 2005 M.A., University of Colorado at Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science 2014 This thesis entitled: Beyond the Democratic State: Anti-Authoritarian Interventions in Democratic Theory written by Brian Carl Bernhardt has been approved for the Department of Political Science Steven Vanderheiden, Chair Michaele Ferguson David Mapel James Martel Alison Jaggar Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards Of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. Bernhardt, Brian Carl (Ph.D., Political Science) Beyond the Democratic State: Anti-Authoritarian Interventions in Democratic Theory Thesis directed by Associate Professor Steven Vanderheiden Though democracy has achieved widespread global popularity, its meaning has become increasingly vacuous and citizen confidence in democratic governments continues to erode. I respond to this tension by articulating a vision of democracy inspired by anti-authoritarian theory and social movement practice. By anti-authoritarian, I mean a commitment to individual liberty, a skepticism toward centralized power, and a belief in the capacity of self-organization. This dissertation fosters a conversation between an anti-authoritarian perspective and democratic theory: What would an account of democracy that begins from these three commitments look like? In the first two chapters, I develop an anti-authoritarian account of freedom and power.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 18 County Budgets and Fiscal Control
    CHAPTER 18 COUNTY BUDGETS AND FISCAL CONTROL Last Revision September, 2010 18.01 INTRODUCTION Balancing the Budget Ohio counties and other local political subdivisions are required by state law to adopt a budget resolution annually. Along with other local governmental entities, Ohio’s counties should adopt proper financial accounting, budgeting, and taxing standards as part of the requirement to maintain their fiscal integrity. 1 The basic outline of the county budget process is set by state law. Each board of county commissioners is required to pass an annual appropriation measure based on a “tax budget” that certifies that tax revenues and other receipts and resources will be sufficient to meet planned expenditures. It should be noted that ORC Section 5705.281 allows the county budget commission to waive the tax budget, and a number of counties have implemented this authority. For those counties that have waived the tax budget, the county budget commission may require the commissioners to provide other information during the budget process. See Section 18.10 for additional information. Counties maintain a variety of funds that support their programs and services. Budgeting by fund is a distinguishing feature of the public sector. State law recognizes 1 The roles and responsibilities of county offices are discussed in Section 18.02 of this Chapter, as well as in Chapter 1, and in the respective chapters of this Handbook , which are referred to in Chapter 1. 1 that balancing a county’s operating budget for each fund is at the heart of sound fiscal management. The following passage from the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) contains this fundamental requirement of balancing each fund within a county’s budget: The total appropriations from each fund shall not exceed the total of the estimated revenue available for expenditure therefrom, as certified by the budget commission, or in case of appeal, by the board of tax appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons: a Different Path for the Left David Ellerman [University of Ljubljana, Slovenia]
    real-world economics review, issue no. 93 subscribe for free Towards abolishing the institution of renting persons: A different path for the Left David Ellerman [University of Ljubljana, Slovenia] Copyright: David Ellerman, 2020 You may post comments on this paper at https://rwer.wordpress.com/comments-on-rwer-issue-no-93/ Abstract This paper is a brief analysis of how the Left has been side-tracked for about a century and a half by Marx, Lenin, and the Russian Revolution. It is as if the central question was whether people should be publicly or privately rented – with the Great Capitalism-Communism Debate and Cold War being like a “Peloponnesian War” over whether slaves should be publicly owned (Sparta) or privately owned (Athens). Although Marx would have personally favored abolishing the (private) wage-labor relation, the deficiency was in his theories. He had: no theory of inalienable rights to critique wage-labor per se; no labor theory of property about workers appropriating the whole product (positive and negative fruits of their labor); and no theory about democracy in the workplace (or elsewhere). The major fork-in-the-road started with the inchoate “labor theory” of Locke, Smith, and Ricardo. Marx tried to develop it as the labor theory of value and exploitation, and the so-called “Ricardian Socialist” (such as Thomas Hodgskin and to some extent, Proudhon) developed it as the labor theory of property – while modern economics bypassed it entirely with the marginalist revolution. We argue that the Left should take the branch indicated by the labor theory of property.
    [Show full text]
  • Ross and Olivecrona on Rights
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2009 Ross and Olivecrona on Rights Brian H. Bix University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian H. Bix, Ross and Olivecrona on Rights, 34 AUSTL. J. LEG. PHIL. 103 (2009), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/211. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ross and Olivecrona on Rights BRIAN H. BIX1 Introduction The Scandinavian legal realists, critically-inclined theorists from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, who wrote in the early and middle decades of the 20t century,2 are not as widely read as they once were in Britain, and they seemed never to have received much attention in the United States. This is unfortunate, as the work of those theorists, at their best, is as sharp in its criticisms and as sophisticated philosophically as anything written by the better known (at least better known in Britain and the United States) American legal realists, who were writing at roughly the same time. The focus of the present article, Alf Ross and Karl Olivecrona, were arguably the most accessible of the Scandinavian legal realists, with their clear prose, straight- forward style of argumentation, and the availability of a number of works in English.
    [Show full text]
  • Justifying Group Intellectual Property: Applying Western Normative Principles to Justify Intangible Cultural Property
    JUSTIFYING GROUP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: APPLYING WESTERN NORMATIVE PRINCIPLES TO JUSTIFY INTANGIBLE CULTURAL PROPERTY HARSHAVARDHAN GANESAN* I. INTRODUCTION What does Yoga,1 the German band Enigma,2 fan fiction,3 anti-fungal properties of Neem,4 Wikipedia,5 the Chain Art Project,6 and aboriginal paintings have in common? They all belong to a legal lacunae, a lacuna relating to group-rights (or collective rights) in Intellectual Property Law. Intellectual Property (‘IP’) has almost consistently, since its inception, romanticized the idea of a sole creator, or individual genius.7 This has deprived vast numbers of small, creative groups and indigenous people of IP protection, which has had varied effects on them, ranging from moral disparagement,8 to economic deprivation,9 and even cultural misappropriation.10 These events have not been ignored either at the domestic or international level however, with a steady consensus building up in favor of Cultural Property (‘CP’),11 particularly following the * Harshavardhan Ganesan is an advocate currently practicing in the Madras High Court with Senior Counsel, Mr. Satish Parasaran. 1 Stuart Schüssel, Copyright Protection Challenges and Alaska Natives' Cultural Property, 29 ALA. L. REV. 313, 315 (2012). 2 Timothy D. Taylor, A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery: Transnational Music Sampling and Enigma's “Return to Innocence,” in MUSIC AND TECHNOCULTURE, 64, 68 (René T. A. Lysloff & Leslie C. Gay, Jr. eds., 2003). 3 Margaret Leidy, Protecting Creation: The Twilight Series, Creation Stories, and the Conversion of Intangible Cultural Property, 41 Sw. U. L. REV. 509 (2012). 4 Srividhya Ragavan, Protection of Traditional Knowledge, 2 MINN. INTELL. PROP.
    [Show full text]
  • To What Extent Is Squatting an Alternative to Capitalism? Squatting in Europe Beyond the Housing Question
    To What Extent is Squatting an Alternative to Capitalism? Squatting in Europe Beyond the Housing Question Miguel Martínez, Claudio Cattaneo Abstract Is squatting a feasible alternative to the housing problems within the capitalist system? Is squatting only a marginal activity undertaken by people in need who are motivated against the rule of capitalism? Is squatting no more than a temporary reaction, to the unsolved “housing question” in the current crisis due to the malfunctioning of the capitalist mechanisms? In spite of several decades of social and political squatting, most of these questions remain very controversial nowadays. In this article we argue that there are evidences in both the practice and the discourse of political squatters, that various forms of alternatives, interferences and challenges to the capitalist system are actually developed. In addition, squatting not only satisfies housing needs, but also other social needs within a context of political experiments of self-management and autonomous mobilisation against many facets of capitalism and urban speculation. However, we also raise the question of the limits and contradictions of such an alternative. These can occur when the squatting experiences are isolated, when they carry on internal reproduction of capitalist relationships or when the capitalist and urban growth machine is not really affected by occasional cases of squatting. This ambivalence may explain the usually opposed approaches that squatting receives in the political arena. Therefore, it is not just a matter of turning every form of squatting into a political anti-capitalist collective what can contribute to enhance its anti-capitalist struggle, but the depth of the contentious interactions with the capitalist processes, and contradictions as well, in which the squatters movements engage.
    [Show full text]
  • Life, Liberty, and . . .: Jefferson on Property Rights
    Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 18, no. 1 (Winter 2004), pp. 31–87 2004 Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org LIFE, LIBERTY, AND . : JEFFERSON ON PROPERTY RIGHTS Luigi Marco Bassani* Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property.1 Surveys of libertarian-leaning individuals in America show that the intellectual champions they venerate the most are Thomas Jeffer- son and Ayn Rand.2 The author of the Declaration of Independence is an inspiring source for individuals longing for liberty all around the world, since he was a devotee of individual rights, freedom of choice, limited government, and, above all, the natural origin, and thus the inalienable character, of a personal right to property. However, such libertarian-leaning individuals might be surprised to learn that, in academic circles, Jefferson is depicted as a proto-soc- ialist, the advocate of simple majority rule, and a powerful enemy of the wicked “possessive individualism” that permeated the revolution- ary period and the early republic. *Department Giuridico-Politico, Università di Milano, Italy. This article was completed in the summer of 2003 during a fellowship at the International Center for Jefferson Studies, Monticello, Va. I gladly acknowl- edge financial support and help from such a fine institution. luigi.bassani@ unimi.it. 1Frédéric Bastiat, “Property and Law,” in Selected Essays on Political Econ- omy, trans. Seymour Cain, ed. George B. de Huszar (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1964), p. 97. 2E.g., “The Liberty Poll,” Liberty 13, no. 2 (February 1999), p. 26: “The thinker who most influenced our respondents’ intellectual development was Ayn Rand.
    [Show full text]