Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 125, Issue 3, pp 531–537

Do Property Rights Presuppose Scarcity?

Article

Abstract

There is a common view, dating back at least to Hume, that property rights presuppose scarcity. This paper is a critical examination of that thesis. In addition to questioning the thesis, the paper highlights the need to divorce the debate over this thesis from the debate over Intellectual Property (IP) rights (the area where it is most frequently applied). I begin by laying out the thesis’ major line of defense. In brief, the argument is that (1) property rights are legitimate only when necessary, (2) necessary only to avoid injury resulting from one party’s use or possession of a good over others’, and (3) that such injury is possible only where there is scarcity. While I accept (1) (at least for the sake of argument), I argue that each of three prominent theories of the justification of property rights cast doubt on (2) and (3). As it turns out, at the theoretical level, there are a number of different ways of dealing with this conflict. However, I argue, no matter which theoretical path one takes, it turns out that the practical implications of the relationship between property rights and scarcity have been woefully misconstrued. Finally, I recount an independent argument for the thesis under consideration and argue that, whether or not it is successful against IP, it does not extend as an argument against ownership of non-scarce goods in general. This serves to further highlight the need to distinguish arguments for the thesis under consideration from arguments against IP.

Keywords

Ownership Property Scarcity Intellectual Property Emerging technologies 

References

  1. Cruft, R. (2006). Against individualistic justifications of property rights. Utilitas, 18(2), 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Faraci, D., & Jaworski, P. M. (accepted). To inspect and make safe: Morally responsible liability in property ownership. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.Google Scholar
  3. Great Britain, & Stephen, J. F.(1897). Copyright Commission: The Royal Commissions and the Report of the Commissioners. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.Google Scholar
  4. Hegel, G. W. F. (1821) Elements of the philosophy of right. Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. Honoré, A. M. (1961). Ownership. In A. G. Guest (Ed.), Oxford essays in jurisprudence: A collaborative work (pp. 107–147). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hoppe, H. (1989). A theory of socialism and capitalism. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature.Google Scholar
  8. Hume, D. (1751). An enquiry concerning the principles of morals.Google Scholar
  9. Jaworski, P. M. (2011). The metaphysics of Locke’s labour view. Locke Studies, 11, 73–106.Google Scholar
  10. Kinsella, S. (2008). Against intellectual property. Auburn: Ludwig van Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Locke, J. (1690). Two treatises of government. London: Awnsham Churchill.Google Scholar
  12. McElroy, W. (2003). Intellectual property: Copyright and patent. In W. McElroy (Ed.), The debates of liberty. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  13. Palmer, T. G. (1989). Intellectual property: A non-Posnerian law and economics approach. Hamline Law Review, 12, 261–304.Google Scholar
  14. Palmer, T. G. (1990). Are patents and copyrights morally justified? The philosophy of property rights and ideal objects. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 13(3), 817–865.Google Scholar
  15. Plant, A. (Ed.). (1974). The economic theory concerning patents for inventions. In Selected economic essays and addresses. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Resnik, D. B. (2003). A pluralistic account of intellectual property. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(4), 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rothbard, M. N. (Ed.). (1997). Justice and property rights. In The logic of action one. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Tavani, H. T. (2005). Locke, Intellectual property rights, and the information commons. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Waldron, J. (1988). The right to private property. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNC Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations