Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-10T01:14:37.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communal Ownership and Kant’s Theory of Right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2020

S. M. Love
S. M. Love*
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
*
Email: slove13@gsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article argues that Kant’s argument for ownership entails a standard of meaningful use by which property regimes can be evaluated: a regime must make it possible for usable objects to be meaningfully used. A particular form of fully communal ownership can satisfy this standard. Further, this form of communal ownership is compatible with Kantian freedom more broadly. I conclude that, if this is so, there is a great deal of space for further consideration of the rightfulness of diverse regimes of ownership and exchange within a Kantian framework.

Keywords

communal ownershippropertyfreedomrightsKant

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 415 - 440
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Kantian Review

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Blackstone, William (1765–9) Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahnel, Robin, and Wright, Erik Olin (2016) Alternatives to Capitalism: Proposals for a Democratic Economy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Hahnel, Robin (2012) Of the People, by the People. Auckland: Soapbox Press.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara (2007) Moral Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Louis-Philippe (2010) ‘Kant on Property Rights and the State’. Kantian Review, 15(1), 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohfeld, Wesley N. (1917) ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’. Faculty Scholarship Series, paper 4378; available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honoré, A. M. (1961) ‘Ownership’. In Guest, A. G. (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 112–24.Google Scholar
James, David (2016) ‘Independence and Property in Kant’s Rechtslehre’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 24(2), 302–22.10.1080/09608788.2015.1121134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julius, A. J (2016) ‘Independent People’. In Kisilevsky, S. and Stone, M. (eds), Freedom and Force: Essays on Kant’s Legal Philosophy (Oxford: Hart Publishing), 91–110.Google Scholar
Justinian (1928) Institutiones. Ed. Krueger, Paul and Mommsen, Theodor (Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol 1). Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996a) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary. In Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 37–108.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996b) ‘On the Common Saying: that may be Correct in Theory, But it is of No Use in Practice’. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary. In Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 273–310.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996c) The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary. In Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 353–604.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (2009) ‘Taking the Law into our own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution’. In The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 233–62.Google Scholar
Le Guin, Ursula K. (1974) The Dispossessed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lomasky, Loren E. (1987) ‘Property Rights within a Liberal Order’. In Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 111–51.Google Scholar
More, Thomas (2002) Utopia. Ed. George, M. Logan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulholland, Leslie A. (1990) Kant’s System of Rights. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2004) ‘Authority and Coercion’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32, 2–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2009) Force and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1997) The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings. Trans. and ed. Gourevitch, Victor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schweickart, David (1996) Against Capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Howard (1983) Kant’s Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, Richard (2012a) Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
Wolff, Richard (2012b) ‘Yes, there is an Alternative to Capitalism: Mondragon Shows the Way’. The Guardian, 24 June; available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen (2008) ‘Social Justice’. InKantian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 193–205.Google Scholar
Wright, Erik Olin (2010) Envisioning Real Utopias. London: Verso.Google Scholar