The author presents the assumptions which form the bedrock of modern liberal property theories. It refers to the conceptions of John Christman, James O. Grunebaum, Lawrence Becker, Stephen R. Munzer and Jeremy Waldron. All these philosophers have devoted separate monographs to the problems of ownership and their works seem representative of the entire liberal current in contemporary political philosophy. This paper does not provide a detailed analysis of the authors’ views on property, but focuses on the elements that these theories (...) share. These are: the bundle theory of property rights; the priority of distributive justice over ownership; the belief that labour is not a property entitlement; the assumption about the separation of production and distribution; the belief in the redistributive role of the state. (shrink)

In this article, in its first part, I present some selected and most important elements of the capabilities approach developed by contemporary American philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum. In the second part, I criticize certain elements of this concept, treating it, in accordance with Nussbaum’s declaration, as above all a political theory, not a moral one.

The paper presents the profiles of three American thinkers associated with the tradition of individualist anarchism. These will be: Lysander Spooner (1808–1887), Albert Jay Nock (1870–1945) and Murray Newton Rothbard (1926–1995). These thinkers were involved not only in writing, but were also active participants in the political life of the time. In their opinion, the state, whose genesis is based on violence and conquest, and the individual are the greatest enemies. The state was perceived as the greatest threat to the (...) freedom of the individual, as it violated the principles of natural law, which in turn was to constitute the moral foundation of society. The state was, therefore, in the opinion of these thinkers, something inherently unjust, because by force and against the will of its citizens it forced them to obey. They did not perceive history in terms of class struggle, but as a struggle between individuals and society against the state. Spooner compared the state to a gang of robbers and murderers (valuing them higher than the state, however) and argued that the constitution did not bind citizens in any way, as it had not been signed by them personally, and the government had no power over the one handed over to it by free units. Nock pointed to the gradual appropriation by the state (“professional criminals”) of competences belonging to society, and the opposing goals of both. He distinguished between a government that aims to protect individuals and justice, and a state that aims to plunder, based on a law it has created. Rothbard advocated the abolition of the state as a tax consumer and its replacement with an anarcho-capitalist order in which private property would be its foundation. Theories of Spooner, Nock and Rothbard, although directed against the state, were not only negative. At their roots was the good of individuals. For Spooner, they were primarily workers, for Nock, citizens, and for Rothbard, entrepreneurs and owners. This fact is worth emphasizing, as the criticism of anarchism often boils down to allegations of radicalism and utopianism, without taking into account its protectionist nature. Criticism of the state is always a consequence of the human vision and should be considered from this perspective. The concepts of Spooner, Nock and Rothbard, although directed against the state, were not only negative. At their root was the good of individuals. For Spooner, they were primarily workers, for Nock, citizens, and for Rothbard, entrepreneurs and owners. This fact is worth emphasizing, as the criticism of anarchism often boils down to allegations of radicalism and utopianism, without taking into account its protectionist nature. In the article, in addition to presenting the positions of American individualist anarchists, we will pay attention to the positive aspects of the criticism of the state and show that already in the nineteenth and twentieth century anarchists recognized certain mechanisms of power, which also occur with particular intensity today. (shrink)

In the paper I discuss the theory developed by Douglas D. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl, who try to find new grounds for defending rights. Drawing upon Aristotle and his virtue ethics, they do not, however, employ the Aristotelian point of view, but present the neo-Aristotelian approach. They claim that rights should be conceived of not as normative but as metanormative principles. Rasmussen and Den Uyl argue that the fundamental right to liberty should be protected by the state. The (...) only role of the state is to be limited to the protection of right to liberty and in turn to the protection of self-directness. The authors defend the right to liberty on moral grounds. It seems, however, that the minimal state approach and moralistic defense of self-directness cannot be combined. (shrink)