DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards Communication Theory of Homesteading Pavel Slutskiy Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, THAILAND

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards Communication Theory of Homesteading Pavel Slutskiy Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, THAILAND INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 2016, VOL. 11, NO. 18, 12919-12935 OPEN ACCESS Towards Communication Theory of Homesteading Pavel Slutskiy Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, THAILAND. ABSTRACT This paper addresses the question of what types of acts constitute, or are sufficient for homesteading, or initial appropriation from the state of the unowned; in other words, what "counts" as "sufficient" homesteading. In the tradition of Locke, Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella, it has long been argued that homesteading (or original appropriation) by decree does not suffice, and an intending actor who wants to homestead a previously unowned resource needs to create “an objective link” between himself and the resource by transforming it, or by starting to control it, according to its nature. In contrast to this concept, this paper argues that since ownership and property rights are not physical, but purely social concepts, they therefore have very little to do with physical control and physical transformation. Initial appropriation represents a social act of communicating a property right claim, and should be examined as such, hence homesteading by verbal decree should suffice. KEYWORDS ARTICLE HISTORY Ownership, Property Rights, Received 2 September 2016 Homesteading, Appropriation, Revised 4 December 2016 Property Rights Ethics. Accepted 17 December 2016 Introduction This paper addresses the question of what types of acts constitute or are sufficient for homesteading; what type of "labor" must be "mixed with" a thing for initial appropriation from the state of the unowned; in other words, what counts as "sufficient" homesteading. I will argue with the tradition of Locke, Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella, who seem to think that homesteading (or original appropriation) by decree does not suffice, and an intending actor who wants to homestead a previously unowned resource needs to create “an objective link” between himself and the resource by transforming it or by starting to control it according to its nature. In contrast to this concept, I will propose an idea that since ownership and property rights are not physical, but purely social concepts, and since they have very little to do with both physical control and physical transformation, thus, I will argue, initial appropriation represents a social act of communicating a property right claim, and should be examined as such, hence homesteading by verbal decree should suffice. To support this proposition, I will turn to communication philosophy, which can be used to explain the role of communication in human interactions regarding property rights. CORRESPONDENCE Pavel Slutskiy [email protected] © 2016 P. Slutskiy Open Access terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License apply. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 12920 In the first section I shall give an overview of the importance of property rights origins for libertarianism; in section two I give a brief account of the theory of transformation and objective link creation as the necessary requirement for initial appropriation and offer the first critique of it; I shall then proceed by questioning the necessity of transformation in section three. Section four deals with possible objections to the theory of appropriation by declaration and section five examines the problem through the lens of communication theory. I conclude in section six. Background Property rights play a crucial role in every political and legal theory. Each theory has some view on who should own what, as well as how property rights over various instances should be allocated. The question of property rights is important because there are situations when the actions of one person can interfere with another person’s control over a resource, thus causing potential conflicts. “Conflicting values invariably involve incompatible—mutually exclusive—views of at least two actors concerning the use of some scarce resources. Obviously then, not both of these parties can decide what these tradeoffs should be…, but only one or the other”. (Hoppe, 1998, p. xxxi). This situation is described as scarcity - that is, the impossibility for several actors to control the same object: “…the term scarcity refers to the possible existence of conflict over the possession of a finite thing. It means that a condition of contestable control exists for anything that cannot be simultaneously owned: my ownership and control excludes your control” (Kinsella & Tucker 2010). Scarce resources may include both tangible objects, such as human bodies, land or other physical things (like apples or oranges), and intangible resources that are scarce - such as energy, or radio wave spectrums. The latter are not material objects in the traditional sense. Scarcity does not necessarily refer to tangibility only, or to the ability to physically manipulate the thing, or to the ability to perceive something with the senses. It only refers to the exclusivity of control (impossibility of exclusive control by multiple actors). Thus, for instance, information and knowledge are not scarce - they can be used simultaneously by multiple persons without restricting the actions of each other, hence the concept of ownership is not applicable to them. Property rights determine a sphere of authority within which individuals may do as they please, without external interference; but they may not cross beyond their own boundary and engage in actions within someone else's sphere of authority (except with that person's permission) (See Long 1993). The most important key points of libertarian views on property rights have been summarised by S. N. Kinsella. His explanation, which follows the tradition of Locke, Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe, runs roughly as follows: when resources are scarce people may dispute who should control them. In this case, it boils down to the question of who among the claimants has the right to control it (property rights). In other words, who the legitimate owner is. Libertarian theory presupposes that the legitimate owner is the one whose claim to possession comes either from original taking into possession from the state of the unowned, or from the consent to transfer the resource from the previous legitimate owner. Kinsella writes: 12921 P. SLUTSKIY … libertarianism is the only theory of rights that… advocates assigning ownership by means of objective links between the owner and the property. This link, of course, is first use, or original appropriation… There is clearly an objective link between the person who first begins to use something, and emborders it, and all others in the world. Everyone can see this. No goods are ever subject to conflict unless they are first acquired by someone. (Kinsella 2007) Why do libertarians believe that initial appropriation is a just form of ownership origination? The logic here is rather simple: if no one possesses a particular scarce resource, then appropriating it does not interfere with anyone else’s control: There is simply no reason not to allow a person to appropriate unowned property. For who could object, if not another, prior owner? To be entitled to object is to be able to "exclude" the claimant, but the right to exclude is an incident of ownership, and the property is by presumption unowned. No one can validly object to my appropriating unowned property, then, because, assuming feasible actions are free, any objection itself must claim a right, and this itself raises a type of ownership claim. (Ibid). From this Kinsella further concludes that the proposition that all possessions were originally founded on theft does not stand up to criticism - theft is taking something from someone, but taking into original possession is quite different - it is not taking it from someone, it is taking it from the state of unowned. No goods are ever subject to conflict unless they are first acquired by someone: …the first user and possessor of a good is either its owner or he is not. If he is not, then who is? The person who takes it from him by force? If forcefully taking possession from a prior owner entitles the new possessor to the thing, then there is no such thing as ownership, but only mere possession. But such a rule — that a later user may acquire something by taking it from the previous owner — does not avoid conflicts, it rather authorizes them (Ibid). In political philosophy this is also referred to as prior-later distinction, clearly expressed by H.-H. Hoppe (1989, 142-43): “What is wrong with this idea of dropping the prior-later distinction as morally irrelevant? First, if the late-comers, i.e., those who did not in fact do something with some scarce goods, had indeed as much of a right to them as the first-comers, i.e., those who did do something with the scarce goods, then literally no one would be allowed to do anything with anything, as one would have to have all of the late-comers' consent prior to doing whatever one wanted to do. Indeed, as posterity would include one's children's children—people, that is, who come so late that one could never possibly ask them—advocating a legal system that does not make use of the prior-later distinction … is simply absurd in that it implies advocating death but must presuppose life to advocate anything. Neither we, our forefathers, nor our progeny could, do, or will survive and say or argue anything if one were to follow this rule. In order for any person—past, present, or future—to argue anything it must be possible to survive now. Nobody can wait and suspend acting until everyone of an indeterminate class of late-comers happens to appear and agree to what one wants to do.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [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]
  • The Invisible Hand Mechanism of Property Appropriation
    On Property Theory1 David Ellerman University of California at Riverside [email protected]; www.ellerman.org Key words: Theory of property; appropriation; invisible hand; responsibility principle, Hume, Locke, employment relation, inalienability of responsible agency. JEL codes: B52, D23, D63, K11, J54 Abstract A theory of property needs to give an account of the whole life-cycle of a property right: how it is initiated, transferred, and terminated. Economics has focused on the transfers in the market and has almost completely neglected the question of the initiation and termination of property in normal production and consumption (not in some original state or in the transition from common to private property). The institutional mechanism for the normal initiation and termination of property is an invisible-hand function of the market, the market mechanism of appropriation. Does this mechanism satisfy an appropriate normative principle? The standard normative juridical principle is to assign or impute legal responsibility according to de facto responsibility. It is given a historical tag of being "Lockean" but the basis is contemporary jurisprudence, not historical exegesis. Then the fundamental theorem of the property mechanism is proven which shows that if "Hume's conditions" (no transfers without consent and all contracts fulfilled) are satisfied, then the market automatically satisfies the Lockean responsibility principle, i.e., "Hume implies Locke." As a major application, the results in their contrapositive form, "Not Locke implies Not Hume," are applied to a market economy based on the employment contract. It is shown the production based on the employment contract violates the Lockean principle (all who work in an employment enterprise are de facto responsible for the positive and negative results) and thus Hume's conditions must also be violated in the marketplace (de facto responsible human action cannot be transferred from one person to another—as is readily recognized when and employer and employee together commit a crime).
    [Show full text]
  • Possession As the Root of Title
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1979 Possession as the Root of Title Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "Possession as the Root of Title," 13 Georgia Law Review 1221 (1979). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POSSESSION AS THE ROOT OF TITLE Richard A. Epstein* I. TM PROBLEM STATED A beautiful sea shell is washed ashore after a storm. A man picks it up and puts it in his pocket. A second man comes along and takes it away from him by force. The first man sues to recover the shell, and he is met with the argument that he never owned it at all. How does the legal system respond to this claim? How should it respond? The same man finds the same shell, only now the state, through its public processes, comes along and insists that the shell belongs to the common fund. It offers the man nothing for it, claiming that the shell was found by luck and coincidence and not by planned and systematic labor. How does the legal system respond to this claim? How should it respond? The questions just put can recur in a thousand different forms in any organized legal system. The system itself presupposes that there are rights over given things that are vested in certain indi- viduals within that system.
    [Show full text]
  • Deserving to Own Intellectual Property Lawrence C
    Hollins University Hollins Digital Commons Philosophy Faculty Scholarship Philosophy 1993 Deserving to own intellectual property Lawrence C. Becker Hollins University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/philfac Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Becker, Lawrence C. "Deserving to Own Intellectual Property." Chicago-Kent Law Review 68 (1993): 609-29. Hollins Digital Commons. Web. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at Hollins Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Hollins Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Becker, Lawrence C. "Deserving to Own Intellectual Property." Chicago- Kent Law Review 68 (1993): 609-29. DESERVING TO OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWRENCE C. BECKER* My project in this Article is to examine the notion that people might "ti'ese'rvede!len>e to own the ploductsofpioducts of their intellectual labor in an especially ·~t'''",.~tJr()nlg way-stronger than any way in which they might deserve to own .· of non-intC,lllectualnon-int(.llleetual labor..labor,. Such a project runs counter to stamd;ardsta.nd;:ud philosophical analyses of property lights,rights, which discuss desert­ toi:-laloor arguments in general terms and make little or nothing of the distinc;ticmdis:tin•cticm between. intellectual and non-intellectuallabor.non-intellectual1abor" 1 This Article will show that focusing on desert arguments for intel­ lectual property raises a. disturbing issue that standardstamdard philosophical analyses overlook,overlook. The issue is this: Suppose, as seems highly likely, that there are multiple, equally powerful lines of argument that are relevant to the justification of a syStemsystem o,fo.,f private property.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer Mckitrick University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy Philosophy, Department of 2006 Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer McKitrick University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub McKitrick, Jennifer, "Liberty, Gender, and the Family" (2006). Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy. 30. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/30 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in LIBERTY AND JUSTICE, ed. Tibor Machan (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2006), pp. 83-103. Copyright 2006 Hoover Institution Press. 3 Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer McKitrick DISCUSSIONS OF JUSTICE within the classical liberal, libertarian tradition have been universalist. They have aspired to apply to any human community, whatever the makeup of its member­ ship. Certainly some feminists have taken issue with this, arguing that the classical liberal, libertarian understanding of justice fails to address the concerns of women, indeed, does women an injustice. Among these we find Susan Moller Okin, and it will be my task in this essay to explore whether Okin's criticism is well founded. Susan Moller Okin's justice, Gender, and the Family is a land­ mark feminist discussion of distributive justice that raises issues no political philosophy should ignore.) However, libertarians have tended to ignore it. That is perhaps not surprising as Okin 1. Susan Moller Okin, Justice, Gnukr, and tlu Family (New York: Basic Books.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncomfortable Bedfellows: Locke and the Libertarian Theory of Property
    University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses UMSL Graduate Works 8-17-2015 Uncomfortable Bedfellows: Locke and the Libertarian Theory of Property Garrett Dimond University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://irl.umsl.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Dimond, Garrett, "Uncomfortable Bedfellows: Locke and the Libertarian Theory of Property" (2015). Theses. 267. https://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/267 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the UMSL Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fall 08 UNCOMFORTABLE BEDFELLOWS: LOCKE AND THE LIBERTARIAN THEORY OF PROPERTY by GARRETT DIMOND B.S. Environmental Horticulture A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI- ST. LOUIS In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS in PHILOSOPHY July, 2015 Advisory Committee Jill Delston, Ph.D. Chairperson Jon McGinnis, Ph.D. Stephanie Ross, Ph.D. Dimond, Garrett, 2015, UMSL, p. 2 Uncomfortable Bedfellows: Locke and the Libertarian Theory of Property Abstract: Libertarians, such as Robert Nozick, have often appealed to Locke’s labor theory as the basis in which to defend full ownership rights to property. My central claim is that this is a mistake. Locke, I argue, is not a comfortable libertarian bedfellow for the following three reasons. (1) Locke’s account of property neither implies rights to full ownership, nor was Locke himself committed to the view. (2) The conditions Locke's labor theory places on property rights would generate a state that more closely aligns with the welfare state than the libertarian minimal state.
    [Show full text]
  • Possession As the Origin of Property Carol M
    Possession as the Origin of Property Carol M. Roset How do things come to be owned? This is a fundamental puz- zle for anyone who thinks about property. One buys things from other owners, to be sure, but how did the other owners get those things? Any chain of ownership or title must have a first link. Someone had to do something to anchor that link. The law tells us what steps we must follow to obtain ownership of things, but we need a theory that tells us why these steps should do the job. John Locke's view, once described as "the standard bourgeois theory,"1 is probably the one most familiar to American students. Locke argued that an original owner is one who mixes his or her labor with a thing and, by commingling that labor with the thing, establishes ownership of it.' This labor theory is appealing because it appears to rest on "desert,"3 but it has some problems. First, without a prior theory of ownership, it is not self-evident that one owns even the labor that is mixed with something else.4 Second, even if one does own the labor that one performs, the labor theory provides no guidance in determining the scope of the right that t Professor of Law, Northwestern University, and Visiting Professor of Law, University of Chicago. For comments and suggestions I especially thank the George Washington Uni- versity Property Colloquium, to which a version of this paper was given in March 1983, and Mary Ann Glendon, Victor Goldberg, Thomas Grey, Thomas Merrill, Frank Michelman, Phyllis Palmer, Daniel Polsby, and Rayman Solomon.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Owns the Moon, Mars, and Other Celestial Bodies: Lunar Jurisprudence in Corpus Juris Spatialis Dennison A
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 82 | Issue 3 Article 3 2017 Who Owns the Moon, Mars, and Other Celestial Bodies: Lunar Jurisprudence in Corpus Juris Spatialis Dennison A. Butler State of Montana, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Part of the Air and Space Law Commons Recommended Citation Dennison A. Butler, Who Owns the Moon, Mars, and Other Celestial Bodies: Lunar Jurisprudence in Corpus Juris Spatialis, 82 J. Air L. & Com. 505 (2017) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol82/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. WHO OWNS THE MOON, MARS, AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES: LUNAR JURISPRUDENCE IN CORPUS JURIS SPATIALIS DENNISON A. BUTLER* N JULY 20TH, 1969, the United States not only solidified Oits dominance in the space race against its ideological ri- val,1 but also captured the hearts and minds of the entire world with the immortal words of Neil Armstrong, “That’s one small step for man . one giant leap for mankind.”2 However, the real question has become whether the United States owns the Moon because it landed there first—first in time, first in right? Can the United States claim it under John Locke’s labor theory,3 having merely planted a flag there? Are the Moon and Mars to be used equally by all countries, and how will that work in future years? Can countries or individuals even claim property rights on celestial bodies? And, finally, how can property rights on the Moon and Mars impact space exploration? With a few words, Neil Armstrong immortalized centuries of people gazing longingly at the Moon and wondering what the human race would find beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Locke and the Right to (Acquire) Property: a Lockean Argument for the Rawlsian Difference Principle
    1 Locke and the Right to (Acquire) Property: A Lockean Argument for the Rawlsian Difference Principle Richard Oxenberg I. Introduction The purpose of my paper is to show the derivation of what has sometimes been called the ‘new liberalism’ (or, as we might now call it, ‘progressive liberalism’) from the basic principles of classical liberalism. In particular, I wish to argue that a careful analysis of the right to property as developed by John Locke shows that this right is neither absolute nor unlimited. Indeed, analysis shows that, considered in the light of modern capitalist society, to honor this right will demand a fairly robust and ongoing program of progressive taxation, aid to the poor, and social programs sufficient to bring the distribution of property into accord with John Rawls’ difference principle. To properly grasp Locke’s theory of property rights it is first of all necessary to make a distinction between the natural right to property as it exists in the Lockean ‘state of nature’ and the societal right to property as it may be established by consent in a socio-economic political system. I begin, then, with an examination of the natural right to property and then proceed to consideration of the societal right to property. II. The Natural Right to Property Of classical liberalism’s celebrated triad of natural rights – life, liberty, and property – the right to property is distinctive. Unlike the others, it is a right to something not inherent to our individual natures. Whereas life belongs to us as biological entities and liberty, arguably, as 2 rational agents, material property does not naturally inhere in us at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Ownership Is Nine-Tenths of Possession: How Disparate Concepts of Ownership Influence Possession Doctrines
    OWNERSHIP IS NINE-TENTHS OF POSSESSION: HOW DISPARATE CONCEPTS OF OWNERSHIP INFLUENCE POSSESSION DOCTRINES Martin Hirschprung*† INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 143 I. PROPERTY AND POSSESSION .................................................................. 145 II. WHAT IS POSSESSION? .......................................................................... 147 III. POSSESSION FOR CULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS PROPERTIES .............. 149 IV. DOMINIUM........................................................................................... 151 V. STEWARDSHIP....................................................................................... 156 A. Stewardship and Religion ................................................................ 157 B. Stewardship and Jewish Law ........................................................... 158 VI. COMPARING ROMAN AND JEWISH LAW .............................................. 159 A. First Possession ............................................................................... 161 B. Adverse Possession .......................................................................... 164 C. Deathbed Bequests ........................................................................... 169 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 175 INTRODUCTION The concept of possession is central to property law.1 It is vital to establishing and providing evidence of ownership.2 However,
    [Show full text]
  • &Contract Economics
    PROPE &CONTRACT • ln ECONOMICS The Case for Economic Democracy DAVID P.EUERMAN 13 This book argues that the recently deceased capitalism-socialism debate was wrong-headed from the beginning - like a "debate" over the private or public ownership of slaves. The question was not private or public slavery, but slavery versus self-ownership. Similarly, this book argues that the question is not whether people should be private employees (capitalism) or public employees (socialism) but whether people should be hired or rented as employees at all versus always being jointly self-employed as employee-owned companies. Being a genuine work of political economy, the book re-examines the basic principles of private property and contract to obtain results at odds with the employer-employee relation and in favor of universal self-employment or economic democracy. Joint self­ employment in the firm is the economic version of joint self-determination or political democracy in society. Private property should be based on people getting the fruits of their labor, but that only happens under joint self­ employment. Market contracts should only apply to what can be transferred, but a person's labor is not really transferable (as we easily recognize for hired criminals). This book traces these ideas - the labor theory of property and the notion of inalienable rights - from the ancient Stoics through the Reformation and Enlightenment, and restates the ideas in modern terms with critical applications to economic theory. Overall, this book provides a timely perspective on the fundamental economic and political questions in the wake of the collapse of the East-European bloc and the continuing debate in the West over the role of labor in the enterprise.
    [Show full text]