Libertarianism and Original Appropriation

Abstract

Libertarianizm i pierwotne zawłaszczenieH i s t o r i a i P o l i t y k a No. 22 (29)/2017, pp. 43 -56 issN 1899 -516 0, e-issN 2391-7652 w w w.h ip.u m k .pl• A b s t r a k t • artykuł poświęcony jest problemowi struktury libertariańskiej teorii sprawiedliwości. Prezentuje on mapę głównych pojęć i zasad tej teorii oraz bada jej możliwe uzasadnienia. artykuł wyjaśnia takie fundamentalne pojęcia jak posiadanie, własność, pierwotne zawłaszczenie, laborystyczna czy posesoryjna teoria własności. artykuł analizuje mocne i słabe strony alternatywnych zasad libertariańskiej teorii sprawiedliwości rządzących pierwotnym nabyciem oraz kreśli szkic oryginalnego uzasadnienia posesoryjnej teorii własności.S ł o w a k lu c z o w e : libertarianizm, pierwotne zawłaszczenie, laborystyczna teoria własno-ści, zmieszanie pracy, posesoryjna teoria wła-sności, pierwsze posiadanie, prawo niesprzeczności, komposybilność uprawnień, teoria sprawiedliwości • A b s t r a c t •The article is devoted to the problem of the structure of libertarian theory of justice. it tries to present a map of the main concepts and principles of this theory and to investigate its possible justifications. it explains such fundamental concepts as original appropriation, homesteading, labour theory of property or first possession theory of original appropriation. The article shows merits and drawbacks of alternative libertarian principles of justice in first acquisition and proposes a sketch of an original justification for the first possession theory of original appropriation. K e y w or d s: libertarianism, original appropriation, homesteading, mixing labour, first possession, occupancy, non-contradiction law, rights compossibility, theory of justice DOi: http://dx

Accession, Property Acquisition, and Libertarianism

“…3 Nozick (1974): 151. 4 For the libertarian labor-mixing theory of original appropriation see, inter alia, Nozick (1974): 178; Steiner (1994): 233; Rothbard (1998): 37;Block (2008); Dominiak (2017a); Dominiak (2023c). For the libertarian first possession theory of original appropriation see, inter alia, Epstein (1979); Hoppe (2014): 25-27; Kinsella (2008): 38;Dominiak (2017a); Dominiak (2023c); Slenzok (2020): 126-129.…”

“…4 For the libertarian labor-mixing theory of original appropriation see, inter alia, Nozick (1974): 178; Steiner (1994): 233; Rothbard (1998): 37;Block (2008); Dominiak (2017a); Dominiak (2023c). For the libertarian first possession theory of original appropriation see, inter alia, Epstein (1979); Hoppe (2014): 25-27; Kinsella (2008): 38;Dominiak (2017a); Dominiak (2023c); Slenzok (2020): 126-129. In the present paper, we assume the truth of the dominant libertarian account of original appropriation, that is, the labor-mixing account, without arguing for its superiority over the first possession theory.…”

“…First of all, property rights are needed to distribute individual domains of freedom, avoid deadlocks and escape conflicts over scarce resources and co-ownership is notoriously bad at this. See Barnett (1998): 47-53;Steiner (1977); Steiner (1994): 86-101;190-207;Steiner (1998): 235-239;Kinsella (2008): 29; Hoppe (2010): 18; Hoppe (2012): 15; Dominiak (2017a). Second of all, besides some very special situations, law always treats co-ownership as an exceptional and transitory arrangement meant to be terminated at the earliest convenience and so recognizes each party's power to demand its dissolution.…”

Libertarianism and Original Appropriation Homesteading: Response to Dominiak

“…Possibly, to raise the necessary funds to save his child's life; he would then value the life of his child more than his own freedom� The buyer, too, would gain, at least ex ante as is always the case in all voluntary commercial interactions, bar none: he places greater weight on the benefits of owning a slave compared to the money he spends for the purchase thereof� 9 9 In the view of Boldrin and Levine: "Take the case of slavery� Why should people not be allowed to sign private contracts binding them to slavery? In fact economists have consistently argued against slavery -during the 19 th century David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill engaged in a heated public debate with literary luminaries such as Charles Dickens, with the economists opposing slavery, and the literary giants arguing in favor� " (Michele Boldrin I think our author is very incisive when he avers: "[…] the subject-matter of principles of justice in transfers is not a factual, physical act of transferring things between persons but identifying licit transfers of existing property titles to these things; a thing or possession thereof can be transferred without the title to it being transferred as e�g�in the case of theft when even though possession is transferred, the title is only violated and stays where it was� " 10 Dominiak then addresses himself to the important question of rectification of committed injustices� In this area relevant questions include issues connected with forfeiture of rights, kinds of liability, sorts of rectification, viz� retribution, restitution, compensation or deterrence, etc�…”