Property rights’ moral basis flows from the moral principle that the de facto responsible party should be held legally responsible.
Property rights are deduced by the natural right to self-ownership.
“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but himself.”
The voluntariness of the employment contract is irrelevant because de facto responsibility cannot be transferred even with consent.
As I said before, you’re denying the natural right of the employee to free will.
Every individual employs scarce resources to attain a desirable end. If you are against social cooperation, you’re making human action more difficult.
“For a contract to exist as property, each contracting party has a property interest in specific performance on the part of the opposing contracting party. But a property interest in specific performance is not a property interest in the person. The employer contracts with an employee for specific performance. The employee also contracts with the employer in similar style. Each has a property interest in the performance of the other, but neither owns the person of the other.”
In an enterprise, the whole product is the property rights to outputs and liabilities for used-up inputs. By the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match, the workers should jointly get the whole product.
You are denying employees’ free will, which comes with responsibility for the results of their joint actions.
Not against social cooperation. Am arguing that all firms should be worker coops. Labor and responsibility are de facto non-transferable
Property rights are deduced by the natural right to self-ownership.
“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but himself.”
As I said before, you’re denying the natural right of the employee to free will.
Every individual employs scarce resources to attain a desirable end. If you are against social cooperation, you’re making human action more difficult.
“For a contract to exist as property, each contracting party has a property interest in specific performance on the part of the opposing contracting party. But a property interest in specific performance is not a property interest in the person. The employer contracts with an employee for specific performance. The employee also contracts with the employer in similar style. Each has a property interest in the performance of the other, but neither owns the person of the other.”
In an enterprise, the whole product is the property rights to outputs and liabilities for used-up inputs. By the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match, the workers should jointly get the whole product.
You are denying employees’ free will, which comes with responsibility for the results of their joint actions.
Not against social cooperation. Am arguing that all firms should be worker coops. Labor and responsibility are de facto non-transferable
https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/