Anarchism and Moral Philosophy pp 69-85 | Cite as
Autonomy, Taxation and Ownership: An Anarchist Critique of Kant’s Theory of Property
Abstract
Property fundamentally affects liberty. When any two individuals occupy space in a finite area, the choices of one will, in principle, and usually in practice, limit the liberties of the other. For instance, if I am sitting in a public park, then you can sit anywhere you please so long as you do not want to sit in the very space I occupy, for I am already sitting there and you have no right to move me. But if, as it turns out, you own the park, then some would say you do have a right to sit in the space I currently occupy, for I have no right to be there. Property, by limiting the sphere of our available and legitimate actions, has this clear and elemental effect on liberty.
Keywords
Civil Condition Original Contract Rightful Possession Rightful Condition Hypothetical ConsentPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
- M. Albert (2004) Parecon: Life After Capitalism (London: Verso).Google Scholar
- M. Bakunin (1972) Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism, ed. Sam Dolgoff (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).Google Scholar
- M. Bookchin (2005) The Ecology of Freedom (Oakland, CA: AK Press).Google Scholar
- N. Chomsky (2002) Understanding Power, eds. P. Mitchell and John Schoeffel (New York: The New Press).Google Scholar
- G. A. Cohen (1995) Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R. Dworkin (1981) ‘What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10 (4): 283–345.Google Scholar
- M. Friedman (1982) Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
- R. Graham (1989) ‘The role of contract in anarchist ideology’ in D. Goodway (ed.) For Anarchism: History, Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
- — (1996) ‘The anarchist contract’ in the R. A. Forum http://raforum.info/ article.php3?id_article=3447, date accessed: 17 February 2010.Google Scholar
- I. Kant (1996) The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy (New York: Cambridge University Press). (Note: Pagination refers to Volume 6 of the Prussia Academy edition).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- N. Klein (2007) The Shock Doctrine (New York: Metropolitan Books).Google Scholar
- P. Kropotkin (1970) Kropotkin’s Revolutionary Pamphlets, ed. R. Baldwin (Toronto: Dover Publications).Google Scholar
- E. Malatesta (1977) Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, ed. V. Richards (London: Freedom Press).Google Scholar
- P. Marshall (2008) Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: Harper Perennial).Google Scholar
- R. Nozick (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
- M. Otsuka (2003) Libertarianism Without Inequality (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- C. Pateman (1985) The Problem of Political Obligation (Oxford: Polity Press).Google Scholar
- J. Rawls (2003) A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
- H. Read (1954) Anarchy and Order (London: Faber and Faber).Google Scholar
- R. Rocker (2004) Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice (Oakland: AK Press).Google Scholar
- C. Ryan (1981) ‘Yours, mine, and ours: Property rights and personal liberty’ in J. Paul (ed.) Reading Nozick (New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield).Google Scholar
- T. M. Scanlon (1998) What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
- M. Schmidt and L. van der Walt (2009) Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism (Oakland: AK Press).Google Scholar
- M. Stirner (1995) The Ego and Its Own, ed. David Leopold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
- J. Waldron (2008) ‘Property’ in E. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/ property/, date accessed: 17 February 2010.Google Scholar
- E. J. Weinrib (2003) ‘Poverty and property in Kant’s system of rights’ Notre Dame Law Review, LXXIII(iii): 795–828.Google Scholar