{"title":"On the Right to Private Property and Entitlement to One's Income","authors":"Andrei Marmor","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.567784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this short essay I argue that the main insight of Murphy and Nagel's book, The Myth of Ownership, that people have no right to their pre-tax income, is not supported by their claim that the right to private property is not a natural right. The non-naturalness of the right to private property, I argue, is completely irrelevant to their moral argument. The plausibility of their moral conclusion derives from the thesis (which they also seem to endorse) that people do have a right to the fruits of their labor, maintaining, however, that there is no possible conception, morally speaking, of what the fruits of one's labor are, independent of a system of legal and social norms that constitute the terms of fair bargaining, pricing, etc. People can only have a right to a fair assessment of the added value of their labor, and the latter cannot make any sense independent of the entire system of norms prevailing in the relevant society. I argue that this conclusion is not affected by the nature of the right to private property.","PeriodicalId":431450,"journal":{"name":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.567784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
In this short essay I argue that the main insight of Murphy and Nagel's book, The Myth of Ownership, that people have no right to their pre-tax income, is not supported by their claim that the right to private property is not a natural right. The non-naturalness of the right to private property, I argue, is completely irrelevant to their moral argument. The plausibility of their moral conclusion derives from the thesis (which they also seem to endorse) that people do have a right to the fruits of their labor, maintaining, however, that there is no possible conception, morally speaking, of what the fruits of one's labor are, independent of a system of legal and social norms that constitute the terms of fair bargaining, pricing, etc. People can only have a right to a fair assessment of the added value of their labor, and the latter cannot make any sense independent of the entire system of norms prevailing in the relevant society. I argue that this conclusion is not affected by the nature of the right to private property.
在这篇短文中,我认为墨菲和内格尔的书《所有权的神话》(the Myth of Ownership)的主要观点——人们对税前收入没有权利——并不支持他们关于私有财产权不是一种自然权利的主张。我认为,私有财产权的非自然性,与他们的道德论证完全无关。他们的道德结论的合理性源于这样一个论点(他们似乎也赞同这个论点),即人们确实有权获得自己的劳动成果,然而,他们坚持认为,从道德上讲,一个人的劳动成果是什么,不可能独立于构成公平交易、定价等条款的法律和社会规范体系。人们只能有权获得对其劳动附加值的公平评估,而后者不可能独立于相关社会中盛行的整个规范体系而有任何意义。我认为这一结论不受私有财产权性质的影响。