Philosophical defenses of property regimes can be classified as supporting either a conservative politics of property rights—the political protection of existing property titles—or a radical politics of direct political intervention to redistribute property titles. Traditionally, historical considerations were used to legitimize conservative property‐rights politics, while consequentialist arguments led to radical politics. Recently, however, the philosophical legitimations have changed places. Conservatives now point to the beneficial economic consequences of something like the current private‐property regime, while radicals justify political redistribution as restitution (...) for historical misappropriations. This shift can be explained by such factors as the failure of state‐directed redistributions of property during the twentieth century to benefit the poor. But there are limitations to the usefulness of historical arguments for radicals, and of consequentialist arguments for conservatives: namely, the undeserving poor and the idle rich, respectively. (shrink)

Research in recent history has neglected to address the moral foundations of particular kinds of public policy such as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs). On the one hand, nation-states have enforced a tightening of the IPR system. On the other, only recently have national government and international institutions recognised that the moral justification for stronger IPRs protection is far from being plausible and cannot be taken for granted. In this article, IPRs are examined as individual rights founded upon (...) natural law, personality development, just reward and social utility. It is argued that these foundations cannot be philosophically sustained. IPRs constitute morally indefensible political developments which aim to reproduce the capitalist division of knowledge and labour at national, international and global levels. The need for such a critical approach to the moral foundations of IPRs has increased in importance as a consequence of their role in justifying corporate power, globalisation policies and harmonisation of such. (shrink)

G.A. Cohen has produced an influential criticism of libertarian‐ism that posits joint ownership of everything in the world other than labor, with each joint owner having a veto right over any potential use of the world. According to Cohen, in that world rationality would require that wealth be divided equally, with no differential accorded to talent, ability, or effort. A closer examination shows that Cohen's argument rests on two central errors of reasoning and does not support his egalitarian conclusions, even (...) granting his assumption of joint ownership. That assumption was rejected by Locke, Pufendorf and other writers on property for reasons that Cohen does not rebut. (shrink)

Journal of Political Philosophy, EarlyView.

Capitalism: The Birth of an Idea. Amongst the Enlightenment’s emancipatory slogans was a call for the liberation of economic energy, a call that was most fully expressed by Adam Smith in Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith provided a final analysis of the mercantilist system that had been prevailing from the beginning of the sixteenth century. By justifying the superiority of the free market economy models, Smith created the intellectual foundations for the capitalist order. (...) He proposed a model for the production and distribution of goods that was based on two pillars: the right to private property and free market institutions. The vision of capitalism created by Smith was a system of power and freedom: a system of individual sovereignty over the world of objects and a system of the free circulation of goods. The combination of these two principles resulted in a coherent system which, when used in practice, has shown remarkable efficiency. Smith’s work proved to be a reliable way to achieve worldly success, one that has worked wherever it was tried out. Capitalism, and the accompanying moral philosophy, was the most commonly pursued idea of the eighteenth century. (shrink)