Does capitalism infringe property rights: A reply to Peter Morriss

• Main Author: KUKATHAS, Chandran
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 1984
• Subjects: Political Economy; Political Science
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2949; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4206/viewcontent/Does_capitalism_infringe_property_rights.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

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.