Property: Mainstream and Critical PositionsC.B. MacPherson University of Toronto Press, 15. 12. 1999. - 210 страница The legitimate role of the state in relation to property and the justification of property institutions of various kinds are matters of increasing concern in the modern world. Political and social theorists, jurists, economists, and historians have taken positions for and against the property institutions upheld in their time by the state, and further dehate seems inevitable. This book brings together ten classic statements which set out the main arguments that are now appealed to and places them in historical and critical perspective. The extracts presented here – all substantial – are from Loeke, Rousseau, Bentham, Marx, Mill, Green, Veblen, Tawney, Morris Cohen, and Charles Reich. A note hy the editor at the head of each extract highlights the arguments in it and relates it to the time at which it was written. Professor Macpherson's introductory and concluding essays expose the roots of some common misconceptions of property, identify current changes in the concept of property, and predict future changes. Macpherson argues that a specific change in the concept (which now appears possible) is needed to rescue liberal democracy from its present impasse. Property is both a valuable text on a crucial topic in political and social theory and a significant contribution to the continuing debate |
Из књиге
Резултати 1-5 од 35
... claim to some use or benefit of something. This is not to say that all of the theorists have approved of the set of rights existing in their society. In recognizing that property consists of actual rights (enforceable claims) they do ...
... claim, I do not mean to imply that they have thought, or that anyone now does think, that the right rests on nothing ... claim because property is necessary for the realization of man's fundamental nature, or because it is a natural ...
... claim to use them. It need not be an unlimited claim. The state may, for instance, have to ration the use of public lands, or it may limit the kinds of uses anyone may make of the streets or of common waters (just as it now limits the ...
... claims) of persons, turns out to be the most unadulterated kind of property. For common property is always a right of the natural individual person, whereas the other two kinds of property are not always so: private property may be a ...
... claims of persons to some use or benefit of something cannot logically be confined to exclusive private property. Having now seen, in this and the preceding section, that property is rights, not things, and that property cannot ...