Natural Order - All Comments

Dmitry Chernikov’s Blog » Blog Archive » Contra the “Labor Theory of Property,” II

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:07:16 GMT

Pingback from Dmitry Chernikov’s Blog » Blog Archive » Contra the “Labor Theory of Property,” II

re: Praxeology, property rights, and contracts

Dmitry Chernikov — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:14:21 GMT

Grant, I do not defend the thesis that "praxeology effectively presupposes property rights." Actually, I argue in the opposite direction, that property rights presuppose or require people to engage in praxeological reasoning. I ask: what does it take for a person to come to own an initially unowned object? Rothbard says: to mix your labor with it, stressing the formal cause. I say: to make it a part of a plan to use it to further your welfare, stressing the final cause.

I think my account is superior. E.g., suppose that instead of making an arrowhead, I find a stone already shaped like an arrowhead (or even a whole arrow lost by someone) in nature. Can't I appropriate it rightfully even without laboring on it? There is really no connection between the form of a thing and who should own it. But there is a definite connection between the purpose of a thing and claims of ownership of it. Even going beyond initial appropriation, on the free market ownership of a resource will gravitate toward whoever can use it most profitably.

extrasq » Blog Archiv » Praxeology, property rights, and contracts

extrasq » Blog Archiv » Praxeology, property rights, and contracts — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:02:21 GMT

Pingback from extrasq » Blog Archiv » Praxeology, property rights, and contracts

re: Can Austrian economics ever become mainstream?

Ajay Siruvuri — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:29:28 GMT

Policy based on political choice rather than sound intellectual reason can never be sustained for long. It was proved in the case of Keynes vs Hayek. In the end rationality prevails. But sadly we may not see the separation of politik and reason