Date: |
Fri Mar 31 17:18:39 2006 |
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
This was sent some time ago in response to one of the comments by Bogdan
Rabanca, but got sent back because of a new e-mail. I hope it is still
relevant to that discussion.
On Locke: one has to be very careful with the Second Treatise. Locke\'s
argument is that in the state of nature there is no true property rights
because there are no rules that define what constitutes property, and no
social mechanisms (because there is no society) to enforce them--i.e., the
role of judges. So everyone rationally recognizes that the
\"inconveniences\" of the state nature means everyone should give up their
natural rights and come into civil society, thereby securing the certainty
to known and enforceable rules governing property--that is, of lives,
liberties andestates. Liberties here refers to the rights to possession
and disposal, that is, or market participation, not political liberties per
se.
Ultimately, Locke\'s civil society has the objective of securing property
rights in a way that makes \"expected value\" stable, and thus provides a
framework for rational calculation of likely future rates of return to
utilitization of assets. To see a very meaningful application of the
Lockean perspective, see James Hurst, Law and Conditions of Freedom in
Nineteenth America, especially chapter 1.
Fred Carstensen
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|