Economic Neoliberalism: Property Right and Redistribution Policy

Authors: Aleksandar Savanović

Abstract:

In this paper, we will analyze the relationship between the neo-liberal concept of property rights and redistribution policy. This issue is back in the focus of interest due to the crisis 2008. The crisis has reaffirmed the influence of the state on the free-market processes. The interference of the state with property relations reopened a classical question: is it legitimate to redistribute resources of a man in favor of another man with taxes? The dominant view is that the neoliberal philosophy of natural rights is incompatible with redistributive measures. In principle, this view can be accepted. However, when we look into the details of the theory of natural rights proposed by some coryphaei of neoliberal philosophy, such as Hayek, Nozick, Buchanan and Rothbard, we can see that it is not such an unequivocal view. 

Keywords: Economic neoliberalism, natural law, property, redistribution

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1338261

References:

[1] J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1967 (1st ed.1689).
[2] K. Cavoski, „Politička filozofija Džona Loka“ („John Locke’s political philosophy“). Filozofske studije, V Belgrade 1974, pp. 142.
[3] G. Yaffe, Liberty Worth the Name – Locke on Free Agency. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000. pp119-123.
[4] J. Bookman, The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984. pp. 358.
[5] T. Lloyd, Locke on Governement. London: Routledge, 2002. pp. 101.
[6] J. Rawls, Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1999. pp. 47.
[7] F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty. London: Routledge, 1960. pp. 21-25.
[8] F. A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. pp.11-59
[9] M. Naffisi “The Paradox of Principles: the dialectics of Hayek’s liberalism.” Economy and Society, (2000) 29 (2): 207–238.
[10] B. Hindess „Locke’s State of Nature.“ History of the Human Sciences, (2007) 20 (3): 4-8.
[11] F.A. Hayek, Fatal Conceit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
[12] L. Mises, Socialism. Indianapolis: Liberty Classic, 1981, pp.27-44.
[13] R. Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
[14] M. Goldsmith „The Entitlement Theory of Justice Considered.“ Political Studies, XXVII (4): 578-579
[15] G. Forster John Locke’s Politics of Moral Consensus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. pp. 19.
[16] M. Rothbard, „Robert Nozick and Immaculate Conception of the State.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, (1978) I (1): 237.
[17] M. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press, 1998.
[18] M. Rothbard, For a New Liberty. London: Macmillan, 2002.
[19] A. Savanovic, Anarhokapitalizam (Anarcho-capitalism). Banjaluka, the Faculty of Political Sciences, 2011.
[20] J. Buchanan, The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago 1975.
[21] R. Plant, The Neo-liberal State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
[22] D. Gordon, The Essential Rothbard. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007.
[23] J. Harris, “Rights and Resources - Libertarians and and the Right Life“. Ratio Juris, (2002) 15 (2), 109-121.
[24] K. Hyams, „Debate: Nozick’s Real Argument for the Minimal State.“ Journal of Political Philosophy, (2004) 12 (3): 353-364.
[25] M. Pennington, „Hayekian Political Economy and the Limits of Deliberative Democracy.“ Political Studies, (2003) 51 (4): 722-739.
[26] A. Savanovic, „Prirodna prava u modelu Anarhističkog equilibriuma”, Godišnjak Pravnog fakulteta, (2011) 33 (33): 243-258.