Inhaltsangabe oder Einleitung
In his article „Property: Convention or Right?” (the Mises Review, Volume 8, Number 2, April 2003) David Gordon criticises Liam Murphy’s and Thomas Nagel’s (M&N) argument that private property is a convention defined by the legal system and therefore property and the influence of taxation on this property cannot hold its ground as a baseline for the evaluation of taxation.
Gordon’s main argument against this claim is that property rights are absolute rights, i.e. rights without duties or restrictions, and he tries to show with an example that M&N confuse legal with moral (or absolute) rights. I doubt that he succeeds in his attempt. In this essay I will show that property rights indeed are not absolute but conventional and that therefore Gordon’s argument is pointless. I will show that even Gordon has to accept the fact that property rights are conventions and that this is coherent with libertarian mainstream thinking. I will also show that M&N’s argument for taxation is reasonable and that as long as there is a government (and there has to be a government if we want to live in a civilized and technologically advanced society) taxation is just and not “legalized theft”.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Jörg Viebranz (Autor:in), 2003, Property: Right by Convention - an answer to David Gordons "Property: Right or Convention, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/40466
Ähnliche Arbeiten
![Titel: Neuer Institutionalismus und der Property-Rights-Ansatz in der Wirtschaftstheorie [Seminararbeit plus Präsentation]](https://cdn.openpublishing.com/thumbnail/products/12751/medium.webp)
Kostenlos Autor werden
Kommentare