財(cái)產(chǎn)的法律和政治理論新作集

內(nèi)容概要

在法律哲學(xué)和政治哲學(xué)領(lǐng)域，圍繞著財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)問題總是聚訟紛紅。像柏拉圖、洛克、康德、黑格爾和馬克思這樣一些思想家，對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)觀念都提出了不同的看法。這本新文集的論文由本領(lǐng)域一些聲名顯赫的學(xué)者撰寫，這些文章運(yùn)用明顯不同的技術(shù)、透過不同的視角探討了財(cái)產(chǎn)理論中最為核心的一些問題?！　　　　”緯恼撐挠懻摿素?cái)產(chǎn)是否能夠粗暴而不受懲罰地被疏散或使用，分析了一個(gè)人的財(cái)產(chǎn)在他去世后應(yīng)該如何分配。這些文章考察了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)在目前的經(jīng)濟(jì)圖景，說(shuō)明了洛克對(duì)私有財(cái)產(chǎn)正當(dāng)性的著名論證因版權(quán)和專利權(quán)而面臨的動(dòng)搖。它們還表明，謹(jǐn)慎地對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)制度予以證明是多么地重要?！　?   這些論文的多樣性和原創(chuàng)性說(shuō)明，在對(duì)人文學(xué)科和社會(huì)科學(xué)的認(rèn)識(shí)探索方面，財(cái)產(chǎn)理論如今已是最激動(dòng)人心的領(lǐng)域之一。木書將引發(fā)哲學(xué)、法律、社會(huì)政策、政治理論和批判法律研究等領(lǐng)域?qū)W者的興趣。它的清晰明朗使得它也能適合于一般讀者閱讀。    Strphen R.Munzer是加利福尼亞大學(xué)洛杉礬分校法學(xué)院的法律教授。他的著述涉及法律和政治理論、生物工藝學(xué)和宗教哲學(xué)等廣泛的領(lǐng)域。他是《一種財(cái)產(chǎn)理論》一書（劍橋大學(xué)出版社，1990）的作者。

作者簡(jiǎn)介

Stephen R.Munzer is Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law. He has biotechnology, and philosophy of religion and is the author of A Theory of Property（Cambridge University Press, 1990）.

書籍目錄

ContributorsPreface and AcknowledgmentsIntroduction　STEPHEN R. MUNZER1 Property, Honesty, and Normative Resilience　JEREMY WALDRON2 Property as Social Relations　STEPHEN R. MUNZER3 Must We Have the Right to Waste?　EDWARD J. MCCAFFERY4 Inheritance and the Justice Tribunal　J. W. HARRIS5 Lockean Arguments for Private Intellectual Property　SEANA VALENTINE SHIFFRIN6 Theories of Intellectual Property　WILLIAM FISHERTable of CasesIndex of NamesIndex of Subjects

章節(jié)摘錄

　　Under the income-plus-estate tax， Perot paid no taxes on account of this largesse; indeed， he saved his estate more than $30 million in taxes - present consumption being the surest way to avoid an estate tax. Under the Modest Proposal， in order to spend $60 million on himself， Perot would have had to pay nearly $140 null ion to the collective fist.　　B.　A parallel objection looks to the power that wealth-holders might have by virtue of investment decisions and control over the Trust Accounts. Once again， however， the objection sits poorly with a revised conception of owner- ship， one without a right to waste. Under the Modest Proposal， savers will be hemmed in by a general fiduciary duty much like the pedant investor rule that any trustee must follow. Society need not micro-manage or engage in overly specific regulation of Trust Account holders. A sensible diversification rule -the kinds of policies already in place for regulating large endowments， banks， and mutual funds， as well as pension plan and IRA investments - is quite sufficient. This further implements an ant waste norm.　　The reasonable society can control and contain the power of the capitalist class to influence policy and politics via its expenditure decisions - in fact， the Modest Proposal gives us a means of serving this reasonable political end that modern institutional theory otherwise altogether lacks. At a minimum， the laws can prolixity lobbying or running for office out of Trust Account funds， as it does now for nonprofit sector monies. Once again， we can understand this feature as following from the systematic decision to monitor the use of resources - to abrogate the private right to waste. Under the Modest Proposal and a life estate conception of ownership， the wealthy cannot be motivated by narrow decadent pleasures nor by a quest for excessive power. They must be motivated， instead， by a sense of "natural duty，" a pride in their accomplishments， a desire to provide a fund for the urgent needs of their family and their posterity， and to do well by us all. They must， that is， serve as allies， not enemies， to the reasonably pluralist society of which they are members.　　C. A final version of the standard liberal objection relates to the social problem of iteration over time.　　A plausible interpretation of the relevant aspects of Rawls's theory and the political liberal project is this： The task of justice as fairness - of the reasonable society -is to set up the fair terms and conditions of background justice. Once these are in place， in part to avoid the problems of placing an overly restrictive moral psychology or sense of individual duty on its citizens， a reasonable society will sit back and allow citizens to engage in trade， transactions， and the voluntary contributions to cooperative enterprises. But the net result of these voluntary transactions， when repeated over tim.　　……

編輯推薦

　　* Contains original contributions from some of the most eminent scholars in the field　　* Covers a broad range of topics such as inheritance， intellectual property， critical legal studies， and property institutions　　* Will be of interest to professionals and students of philosophy， law， social policy， and political theory　　There has always been much controversy surrounding property rights in legal and political philosophy. Thinkers such as Plato， Locke， Kant， Hegel and Marx have all offered different views on the idea of property. This collection of new essays， written by some of the most eminent scholars in the field， examines the most central issues of property theory using markedly different techniques and perspectives，　　The essays discuss whether property may be dissipated or used imprudently with impunity and analyze how a person's property should be distributed after death.　　They survey the current economic landscape of intellectual property and show that Locke's celebrated justification for private property falters when it comes to copyrights and patents. They also demonstrate how important it is that institutions of property be carefully justified.　　The variety and originality of these essays are evidence that the theory of property is now one of the most exciting areas of intellectual inquiry in the humanities and social sciences. This volume will be of interest to professionals and students of philosophy， law， social policy， and political theory.

圖書封面

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    財(cái)產(chǎn)的法律和政治理論新作集 PDF格式下載

---