Mixing Labor, Taking Possession, and Libertarianism: Response to Walter Block

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Łukasz M. Dominiak
{"title":"Mixing Labor, Taking Possession, and Libertarianism: Response to Walter Block","authors":"Łukasz M. Dominiak","doi":"10.12775/szhf.2023.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his recent rejoinder to my paper Walter Block argues that only the Lockean labor-mixing theory of first acquisition is compatible with libertarianism. Block’s claim is in turn directed against a position held by me in the said paper that it is the first possession theory of original appropriation that is a better fit for libertarianism. Upon reading Block’s rejoinder and thinking intensely about this issue, in the present paper I agree with Block and disagree with my former self, accepting the view that it isindeed the Lockean labor-mixing theory that should be embraced by libertarians. This verdict is mainly motivated by the following arguments that I develop in detail in the paper: (1) no libertarian arguments against the labor-mixing theory seem to work, (2) the first possession theory is unable (contrary to the labor-mixing theory) to accommodate the idea of original appropriation tracking objective links between actors andthings; (3) the labor-mixing theory better fits our intuitions about justice in property acquisition. However, in order not to make things too easy for Block, I also argue that there are some surprising and problematic consequences of adopting the labor-mixing account. I am fully prepared to accept them. The question is whether so is Block.","PeriodicalId":32293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Historii Filozofii","volume":"43 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia z Historii Filozofii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/szhf.2023.026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In his recent rejoinder to my paper Walter Block argues that only the Lockean labor-mixing theory of first acquisition is compatible with libertarianism. Block’s claim is in turn directed against a position held by me in the said paper that it is the first possession theory of original appropriation that is a better fit for libertarianism. Upon reading Block’s rejoinder and thinking intensely about this issue, in the present paper I agree with Block and disagree with my former self, accepting the view that it isindeed the Lockean labor-mixing theory that should be embraced by libertarians. This verdict is mainly motivated by the following arguments that I develop in detail in the paper: (1) no libertarian arguments against the labor-mixing theory seem to work, (2) the first possession theory is unable (contrary to the labor-mixing theory) to accommodate the idea of original appropriation tracking objective links between actors andthings; (3) the labor-mixing theory better fits our intuitions about justice in property acquisition. However, in order not to make things too easy for Block, I also argue that there are some surprising and problematic consequences of adopting the labor-mixing account. I am fully prepared to accept them. The question is whether so is Block.
混合劳动、占有和自由主义:回应沃尔特-布洛克
沃尔特-布洛克(Walter Block)在他最近对我的论文的反驳中认为,只有洛克的劳动混合首次获得理论才符合自由主义。布洛克的主张反过来又针对了我在上述论文中所持的立场,即原始占有的首次占有理论更适合自由主义。在阅读了布洛克的反驳并对这一问题进行深入思考后,我在本文中同意布洛克的观点,不同意我之前的观点,接受了自由主义者应该接受洛克的劳动混合理论的观点。做出这一判断的主要原因是我在本文中详细阐述的以下论点:(1)自由主义者反对劳动混合理论的论据似乎都不成立;(2)第一占有理论无法(与劳动混合理论相反)容纳原始占有追踪行为人与物之间客观联系的思想;(3)劳动混合理论更符合我们关于财产获取正义的直觉。然而,为了不让布洛克把事情想得太简单,我也认为,采用劳动混合理论会产生一些令人吃惊和有问题的后果。我完全愿意接受这些后果。问题是布洛克是否也准备接受这些后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studia z Historii Filozofii
Studia z Historii Filozofii Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书