DOCSLIB.ORG

This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. PRIVATE PROPERTY, FREEDOM AND POWER Constanza Salgado Muñoz Presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Edinburgh 2019 1 Everybody knows the fight was fixed The poor stay poor, the rich get rich That’s how it goes Everybody knows Leonard Cohen, Everybody Knows 2 ABSTRACT / LAY SUMMARY This thesis aims to shed light on a central aspect of private property: the limits that it imposes on the freedom of non-owners and its potential implications. To the extent that private property does not depend on the physical connection between the owner and the object, accumulation becomes normatively possible because one can be an owner of more things that one can physically hold or protect from others. The situation that private property enables is not only that people may have no opportunity to acquire and be an owner, but more importantly, that it may leave people without the possibility of satisfying their needs by using objects that otherwise would be available for everyone’s use. In the first part of the thesis, I examine three different justifications for private property produced within the liberal/libertarian canon. I will use these accounts to investigate what follows for a justification of private property from considering its passive side of the property relation. The general idea is that a justification of private property demands consideration of the interests of non- owners: of their unfreedom and its potential implications regarding the justification of a private property system. In the second part of the thesis, I intend to demonstrate that private property not only gives freedom to owners but also may give them power. There is certainly a sense in which private property always gives power to owners. Private property gives to owners the power to pursue aims that otherwise would be either impossible or very difficult to achieve. However, great unequal distributions of private property may give to owners not only power to, but also power over people. Given the fact that accumulation may leave individual needs unmet, private property becomes an important power resource. The second part of the thesis is dedicated to show that in its capitalist articulation, private property gives a dominating power to owners in two main spheres: the economic and the political spheres. This task turns to be more difficult than it 3 might superficially appear to be, as political philosophy does not provide an adequate general framework for thinking about private domination. 4 DECLARATION As per the Assessment Regulation (n 34) for Research Degrees at the University of Edinburgh, I confirm: (a) That this thesis has been composed by me; (b) That the work contained in this thesis is my own; (c) And that it has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. Constanza Salgado Muñoz Edinburgh, 9 September 2019 5 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT / LAY SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 3 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 1. AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS ................................... 11 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 2. Defining private property .............................................................................................. 12 3. Justificatory arguments for private property .............................................................. 16 3.1. Why does private property need justification? ................................................... 16 3.2. Private property and the passive side of non-owners ........................................ 18 3.3. Private property, freedom and distribution ......................................................... 21 3.3.1. Freedom as property ........................................................................................ 21 3.3.2. Distributive considerations in Kant’s justification of private property .... 24 3.4. Labour, distribution and common good-based arguments ............................... 26 3.4.1. Labour and distribution ................................................................................... 26 3.4.2. A common good-based argument .................................................................. 27 4. The power of capitalist property .................................................................................. 29 4.1. The dominating power of capitalist property ...................................................... 29 4.1.1. Dominium as power over people ................................................................... 29 4.1.2. Defining capitalist property ............................................................................ 31 4.2. The problem of domination .................................................................................... 34 4.2.1. Domination in the mainstream liberal tradition .......................................... 34 4.2.2. Domination as a wrong .................................................................................... 36 4.3. The limits of capitalist property ............................................................................. 37 4.3.1. Capitalist property in a justification of private property ............................ 37 4.3.2. Capitalist property and the ambivalence of law .......................................... 40 CHAPTER 2. PRIVATE PROPERTY, NEGATIVE FREEDOM AND LIBERTARIANISM ............................................................................................................. 45 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 45 2. Property right-based conceptions of negative freedom ............................................ 46 2.1. Negative freedom and private property............................................................... 46 2.2. The libertarian approach to the relation between freedom and property ....... 47 2.3. The moralized understanding of freedom ........................................................... 49 3. The pure negative freedom approach .......................................................................... 51 7 3.1. Important features .................................................................................................... 51 3.1.1. Freedom as physical possibility ...................................................................... 51 3.1.2. Freedom as an opportunity concept ............................................................... 52 3.1.3. The neutrality of the pure negative conception of freedom........................ 54 3.2. Freedom, inabilities and incapacities .................................................................... 56 3.2.1. (In)ability and (un)freedom ............................................................................. 57 3.2.2. Freedom and its conditions of exercise .......................................................... 59 4. The freedoms that private property constraints ......................................................... 60 4.1. The unfreedom of non-owners ............................................................................... 60 4.2. Capitalism, private property and freedom ........................................................... 64 4.2.1. Money, markets and freedom: property as a particular distribution of freedom ......................................................................................................................... 64 4.2.2. The (un)freedom both to work and to decide what to produce ................. 68 4.2.3. Property and (re)distribution .......................................................................... 72 CHAPTER 3. PRIVATE PROPERTY IN KANT’S FREEDOM AS INDEPENDENCE ............................................................................................................... 75 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 75 2. Kant’s justification of private property ........................................................................ 76 2.1. Physical possession .................................................................................................. 79 2.2. Intelligible possession .............................................................................................. 79 2.3.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Opinion No. 298 Water Rights-State Lands-Easements Opinion No. 299
    202 OPI~IOXS OF THE ATTORXEY GE~ERAL to put a check upon public officers in tana give a person the right to go on the expenditure of moneys authorized the public domain for the purpose of under the general laws, and in the col­ appropriating water flowing through lection and expenditure of which the the same or ha ,-ing its source therein. taxpayers have no direct vote. The diversion of such water may be In our opinion the legal voters of made by a ditch, flume, pipe or aque· the district, who are taxpaying free­ duct. (Section 7093 et seq., Re,ised holders therein, have the power to au­ Codes 1921; Smith v. Denniff, 24 Mont. thorize a le,-y to produce amounts in 20; Prentice v. McKay, supra.) excess of the maximums specified in The first appropriator on a stream or Section 5, Chapter 178, J~a ws of 193:3. >=pring is entitled, b~' drtue of his prior right, to the use and enjoyment Opinion No. 298 of the water to the full extent of his original appropriation, even when this Water Rights-State Lands-Easements includes all of the water of the stream or spring, and this right continues so HELD: A water right may be per­ long as he applies all of the water fected when water from springs has appropriated to some useful or hene­ been appropriated on state land and ficial purpose. (Mettler v. Ames Realty com-eyed across said land through a Co., 61 Mont. 152; 2 Kinney on Irri­ pipe line without securing a right o~ gation and Water Rights, sec.
    [Show full text]
  • On Original Appropriation
    On Original Appropriation Peter Vallentyne, University of Missouri-Columbia in Malcolm Murray, ed., Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson and the Defence of Libertarianism (Aldershot: Ashgate Press, 2007), pp. 173-78 Libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves. Lockean libertarianism further holds that agents have the moral power to acquire private property in external things as long as a Lockean Proviso—requiring that “enough and as good” be left for others—is satisfied. Radical right-libertarianism, on the other hand, holds that satisfaction of a Lockean Proviso is not necessary for the appropriation of unowned things. This is sometimes defended on the ground that the initial status of external resources as unowned precludes any role for a Lockean Proviso. I shall show that this is a bad argument. Although I would argue that satisfaction of a Lockean Proviso is indeed a necessary condition for the appropriation of unowned things, I shall not attempt to establish that here. My goal here is more modest: to rebut one argument against the Lockean Proviso. The Lockean Proviso can be interpreted in several different ways. Nozickean right- libertarianism interprets the proviso as requiring that no one be left worse off by the appropriation than she would be if the thing remained in common use.1 Equal share left- libertarianism2 interprets the Lockean Proviso as requiring that no one be worse off than she would be if no one appropriated more than an equal share of the competitive value (i.e., based on demand and supply) of initially unowned things. Equal opportunity (for wellbeing) left- libertarianism3 interprets the Lockean Proviso as requiring (roughly) that no one be worse off than she would be if no one appropriated more than is compatible with everyone having an equally valuable opportunity for wellbeing.4 I shall not here assume any particular version of the Lockean Proviso.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Law Deskbook, 2014, Chapter 2
    C hapter 2: Availability of Appropriations as to Purpose THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CHAPTER 2 AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS AS TO PURPOSE I. REFERENCES. .......................................................................................................................1 II. CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND OTHER BACKGROUND. .......................1 A. U.S. Constitution ................................................................................................................1 B. The Purpose Statute............................................................................................................ 2 C. The “Necessary Expense Doctrine” (a.k.a. The 3-part Purpose Test). .............................2 III. THE APPROPRIATION ACTS .........................................................................................4 A. Overview. ...........................................................................................................................4 B. Appropriations ....................................................................................................................4 C. Continuing Resolution Authorities .....................................................................................5 D. Researching Appropriation Acts.. ......................................................................................5 IV. EXPRESS STATUTORY PURPOSE: THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS......................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Reviving the Public Ownership, Antispeculation, and Beneficial Use Moorings of Prior Appropriation Water Law
    REVIVING THE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP, ANTISPECULATION, AND BENEFICIAL USE MOORINGS OF PRIOR APPROPRIATION WATER LAW GREGORY J. HOBBS, JR.* This article addresses originating principles of Colorado prior appropriation water law and demonstrates how the Colorado Supreme Court has applied them in significant cases decided during the first decade of the twenty-first century, a sustained period of drought. These principles include public ownership of the water resource wherever it may be found within the state, allocation of available unappropriated surface water and tributary groundwater for appropriation by private and public entities in order of their adjudicated priorities, and the antispeculation and beneficial use limitations that circumscribe the amount and manner of use each water right is subject to. Demonstrating that Colorado water law is based on conservation of the public's water resource and its use by private persons, public entities, federal agencies, and Indian Tribes, the article focuses on the following points. Colorado's prior appropriation doctrine started off recognizing adjudication only of agricultural uses of water. Now it embraces environmental and recreational use, in addition to serving over five million persons, most of who live in urban and suburban areas. The viability of the water law is dependent upon faithful enforcement of water rights in order of their adjudicated priorities when there is not enough water available to serve all needs. At the same time, innovative methods have emerged to ameliorate strict prior * Member of the Colorado Supreme Court. This article was prepared for the University of Colorado Law School Symposium A Life of Contributions for All Time: Symposium in Honor of David H.
    [Show full text]
  • This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. A LeftLeft----LibertarianLibertarian Theory of Rights Arabella Millett Fisher PhD University of Edinburgh 2011 Contents Abstract....................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................v Declaration.................................................................................................................. vi Introduction..................................................................................................................1 Part I: A Libertarian Theory of Justice...................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • FWS FY2020 Budget Justification
    The United States The United States BUDGET Department of the Interior BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS Department of the Interior JUSTIFICATIONS and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2020 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NOTICE: These budget justifications are prepared for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees. Approval for release of the justifications prior to their printing in the public record of the Subcommittee hearings may be obtained through the Office of Budget of the Department of the Interior. Printed on Recycled Paper FY 2020 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fiscal Year 2020 President’s Budget Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................. EX - 1 Organization Chart .................................................................................................. EX - 6 Overview of Fiscal Year 2019 Request ................................................................... EX - 9 Agency Priority Goals ............................................................................................ EX - 16 Budget at a Glance Table ..................................................................................... BG - 1 Summary of Fixed Costs ......................................................................................... BG - 4 Appropriation: Resource Management Appropriations Language .............................................................................RM
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Appropriation Property Rights and the Development of Irrigation in the Western United States*
    Collective Action by Contract: Prior Appropriation Property Rights and the Development of Irrigation in the Western United States* Bryan Leonard† and Gary D. Libecap‡ September 23, 2016 Sept 26 update Abstract: We analyze the economic determinants and effects of prior appropriation water rights that were voluntarily implemented across a vast area of the US West, abruptly replacing common-law riparian water rights. We build upon Ostrom and Gardner (1993) and model irrigation as a contracting problem to show how the features of prior appropriation were necessary to support welfare-increasing contracts for securing and sharing water and financing irrigation infrastructure among numerous, heterogeneous agents. We construct novel dataset of 7,800 rights in Colorado, established between 1852 and 2013 including location, date, size, infrastructure investment, irrigated acreage, crops, topography, stream flow, soil quality, and precipitation to test the predictions of the model. Prior appropriation doubled infrastructure investment and raised the value of agricultural output beyond baseline riparian rights. The analysis reveals institutional innovation that informs both our understanding of the development of property rights, prior appropriation, and contemporary water policy. * For helpful comments we thank Christopher Costello, Olivier Deschenes, Dick Startz, Louis Kaplow, Steve Shavell, and Henry Smith as well as participants at workshops at the NBER DAE Summer Institute, Indiana University, UC Santa Barbara, Arizona State University, Columbia University, Harvard, UCLA, Montana State University, the University of Arizona, the Society for Organizational and Institutional Economics, and the Western Economics Association. We also thank the Walton Family Foundation and the Sustainable Water Markets program at UC Santa Barbara for supporting this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Acquisition of Property: from Conquest & † Possession to Democracy & Equal Opportunity
    Original Acquisition of Property: From Conquest & † Possession to Democracy & Equal Opportunity ∗ JOSEPH WILLIAM SINGER “I have been thinking,” said Arthur, “about Might and Right. I don’t think things ought to be done because you are able to do them. I think they should be done because you ought to do them. After all, a penny is a penny in any case, however much Might is exerted on either side, to prove that it is or is not. Is that plain?” 1 ~ T.H. White Where do property rights come from? If you believe the property casebooks, we acquire original title to property by conquering other nations, hunting animals, catching baseballs, encroaching on our neighbors’ lands, drilling for oil, and finding lost jewels.2 You’ve heard the expression “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” It turns out it’s actually true. If you can take it, you can keep it—not exactly the most morally attractive justification for the rights of owners. Imagine teaching your children that the way to get things is to grab whatever they can. But maybe there is something to the possession theory. What would we have to believe to make possession a just original source of title to property? Possession is plausible as a source of title only if you are not taking something that already belongs to someone else. If you are the first possessor of an unowned object, like a wild animal or a deserted island, possession is like magic; it allows you to create something out of nothing. Who could reasonably object to your claim? No one has been displaced by your act of occupation and everyone else is perfectly free to go out and hunt their own foxes and discover their own uncharted shores.
    [Show full text]