Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 909–923 | Cite as

Beyond Frontier Town: Do Early Modern Theories of Property Apply to Capitalist Economies?

  • Katharina NieswandtEmail author
Article
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

The theories of Locke, Hume and Kant dominate contemporary philosophical discourse on property rights. This is particularly true of applied ethics, where they are used to settle issues from biotech patents to managerial obligations. Within these theories, however, the usual criticisms of private property aren’t even as much as intelligible. Locke, Hume and Kant, I argue, develop claims about property on a model economy that I call “Frontier Town.” They and contemporary authors then apply these claims to capitalist economies. There are two problems with this application: First, we’ll be considering the wrong kind of property: The only property in Frontier Town are means of life. Critics, however, object to property in concentrated capital because they associate only this kind of property with economic coercion and political power. Second, the two economies differ in central features, so that very different claims about empirical consequences and hence about fairness and merit will be plausible for each. This second problem, I argue, is a consequence of the first. I conclude that Frontier Town theories are more likely to distort than to illuminate property issues in capitalist economies.

Keywords

Property rights State of nature Capital Locke Hume Kant 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am deeply grateful to the many colleagues who commented on earlier versions of this paper at various conferences. I am particularly indebted to Ulf Hlobil, Pablo Gilabert, Peter Dietsch, David Borman, Elijah Millgram, Arash Abizadeh and two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Baier AC (1987) The need for more than justice. Can J Philos 17(sup1):41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breitenbach A (2005) Kant goes fishing: Kant and the right to property in environmental resources. Stud History Philos Science Part C 36(3):488–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) (2015) Do we need GM crops to feed the World? http://gmoinquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/do-we-need-gm-feed-world-report-E-web.pdf
  4. Center for Food Safety (CFS) & Save Our Seeds (SOS) (2013) Seed giants vs. US farmers. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf
  5. Christman J (1994) The myth of property: toward an egalitarian theory of ownership. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilabert P (2010) Kant and the claims of the poor. Philos Phenomenol Res 81 (2):382–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gourevitch A (2013) Labor republicanism and the transformation of work. Polit Theory 41:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graeber D (2011) Debt: the first 5,000 years. Melville HouseGoogle Scholar
  9. Hasan R (2018) Freedom and poverty in the Kantian state. Eur J Philos 26 (3):911–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayek FA (2011) The constitution of liberty: the definitive edition. The collected works of F. A. Hayek. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Held V (2005) The ethics of care, personal, political, and global. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Herzog L (2014) Eigentumsrechte im Finanzsystem. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 62(3)Google Scholar
  13. Hume D (2000) A treatise of human nature: being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects. Ed. by David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton. With an introduction, annotations, glossary and an index. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Jasay A (2004) Property and its enemies. Philosophy 79(1):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones JD (2005) Hervaeus Natalis’ the poverty of Christ and the Apostles. A translation, with introduction and notes. Pontifical Institute of Medieval StudiesGoogle Scholar
  16. Kant I (1909) Metaphysik der Sitten. In: Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed). Kants gesammelte Schriften, vol 6. Reimer, pp 200–494Google Scholar
  17. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45 (1):1–28Google Scholar
  18. Lindsay IK (2014) A Humean theory of property rights. University of Michigan, Ph.D. thesisGoogle Scholar
  19. Locke J (1823) An essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government. In: The works of John Locke, vol 5. Tegg, pp 338–489Google Scholar
  20. Macpherson CB (1962) The political theory of possessive individualism. Hobbes to Locke, ClarendonGoogle Scholar
  21. Mancilla A (2015) A can of tomato juice in the sea. Philos Now 107:20–21Google Scholar
  22. Mansell S (2013) Shareholder theory and Kant’s duty of beneficence. J Bus Ethics 117(3):583–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markovits D (under contract) Snowball inequality: meritocracy and the crisis of capitalism. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Marx K, Engels F (1962) Das Kapital, vol 1. In: Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (ed), Werke, vol 23. DietzGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy L, Nagel T (2002) The myth of ownership. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Murray C (2008) Guaranteed income as a replacement for the welfare state. Basic Income Stud 3(2):article 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nussbaum MC (2006) Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Tanner lectures on human values. BelknapGoogle Scholar
  28. Parijs Pv (1995) Real freedom for all: what (if anything) can justify capitalism? ClarendonGoogle Scholar
  29. Peterson J (2008) Lockean property and literary works. Legal Theory 14(4):257–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piketty T (2013) Le capital au XXIe siècle. Éditions du SeuilGoogle Scholar
  31. Proudhon P-J (1840) Qu’est-ce que la propriété? Recherches sur le principle du droit et du gouvernement. PrévotGoogle Scholar
  32. Radin MJ (1993a) Property and personhood. In: Reinterpreting property. Chicago University Press, pp 35–71Google Scholar
  33. Radin MJ (1993b) Residential rent control. In: Reinterpreting property. Chicago University Press, pp 72–97Google Scholar
  34. Ripstein A (2009) Force and freedom: Kant’s legal and political philosophy. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Shrader-Frechette K (2005) Property rights and genetic engineering: developing nations at risk. Sci Eng Ethics 11(1):137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith A (1784) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, 4th edn. Strahan & CadellGoogle Scholar
  37. Sterckx S (2006) The moral justifiability of patents. Ethical Perspect 13(2):249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Varden H (2012) A Kantian critique of the care tradition: family law and systemic justice. Kantian Rev 17(2):327–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waldron J (1994) The advantages and difficulties of the Humean theory of property. Soc Philos Policy 11(2):85–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Waldron J (2013) To bestow stability upon possession: Hume’s alternative to Locke. In: Penner J, Smith H (eds) Philosophical foundations of property law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Westphal KR (2016) How Hume and 7Kant reconstruct natural law: justifying strict objectivity without debating moral realism. ClarendonGoogle Scholar
  42. Widerquist K, McCall GS (2017) Prehistoric myths in modern political philosophy. Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. Wittgenstein L (2009) Philosophische Untersuchungen / philosophical investigations, 4th edn. The German text with a revised English translation by G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood AW (2007) Kantian ethics. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations