Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

12-1984

Abstract

In a research note on 'How Capitalism Infringes Property Rights' {PoliticalStudies, XXXI (1983), pp. 656-61), Peter Morriss attempts to demonstratethat a Nozickian version of rights theory is incompatible with that account ofcapitalism which emphasizes the importance (and value) of entrepreneurialrisk-taking and entrepreneurial failure. Because bankruptcy is an acceptedconsequence of entrepreneurial failure, capitalism, which condonesbankruptcy, in fact condones the violations of the rights of creditors. Thusthose who, like Nozick, defend property rights as sacred and inviolable, 'shouldbe in the vanguard of capitalism's opponents' (p. 657) Since the rights-basedargument for capitalism is that rights can never be legitimately violated, 'oncethe rights theorist admits that capitalism necessarily condones some violationsof property rights—however little—he must either oppose capitalism or jettisonhis insistence on the inviolability of property rights. Or, of course, both.'(p. 661) While Morriss's interesting essay illuminates a number of issuesinvolving capitalism and property rights, this reply argues that he is wrong onalmost all counts. While rights violations may occur in capitalist societies,capitalism does not infringe property rights. The paper attempts to show this byidentifying the weaknesses in Morriss's arguments to the contrary.

Discipline

Political Economy | Political Science

Research Areas

Political Science

Publication

Political Studies

Volume

32

Issue

4

First Page

615

Last Page

617

ISSN

0032-3217

Identifier

10.1111/j.1467-9248.1984.tb01551.x

Publisher

SAGE Publications (UK and US)

Additional URL

https://doi.org/110.1111/j.1467-9248.1984.tb01551.x

Share

COinS