Problem dobrowolnego niewolnictwa w filozofii politycznej libertarianizmu

  • Author: Łukasz Dominiak
  • Institution: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu
  • Year of publication: 2017
  • Source: Show
  • Pages: 61–84
  • DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2017.54.04
  • PDF: apsp/54/apsp5404.pdf

Artykuł dotyczy problemu możliwości prawnej istnienia dobrowolnego niewolnictwa na gruncie libertariańskiej teorii naturalnych praw podmiotowych. Praca stawia hipotezę, iż teoria ta zakłada możliwość prawną istnienia umów niewolnictwa i że możliwość ta wynika logicznie ze zbywalności oraz komposybilności (compossibility) naturalnych praw podmiotowych. Artykuł prowadzi dyskusję z przedstawianymi w literaturze przedmiotu argumentami negującymi taką możliwość. W pracy wykorzystano metodę analizy logicznej.

THE PROBLEM OF VOLUNTARY SLAVERY IN THE LIBERTARIAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

The present paper deals with the problem of voluntary slavery lawfulness within the libertarian theoretical framework. It hypothesises that libertarian theory of natural rights assumes the possibility of licit slavery contracts and that it stems logically from the alienability and compossibility of natural rights. Moreover, the paper discusses arguments against voluntary slavery presented in the literature. The method of logical analysis has been employed to examine validity of the hypotheses.

BIBLIOGRAFIA:

  • Barnett, R.E. (1986). Contract Remedies and Inalienable Rights. Social Philosophy and Policy, 4 (1).
  • Barnett, R.E. (2004). The Structure of Liberty: Justice and The Rule of Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Block, W. (1970). Voluntary Slavery. Libertarian Connection, 6 (1).
  • Block, W. (1999). Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin. Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, 22 (1).
  • Block, W. (2001). Alienability, Inalienability, Paternalism and the Law: Reply to Kronman. American Journal of Criminal Law, 28 (3).
  • Block, W. (2003). Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard,Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17 (2).
  • Block, W. (2004). Are Alienability and the Apriori of Argument Logically Incompatible? Dialogue, 1 (1).
  • Block, W. (2007). Alienability: Reply to Kuflik. Humanomics, 23 (3).
  • Block, W. (2015). On Slavery and Libertarianism. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 2 (3).
  • Buchanan, A. (1991). Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumpter to Lithuania and Quebec. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Epstein, R. (1986). Past and Future: The Temporal Dimensions in the Law of Property. Washington University Law Quarterly, 64
  • Finnis, J. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Føllesdal, D., Hilpinen, R. (1981). Deontic Logic: An Introduction. W: R. Hilpinen (red.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  • Gordon, D. (1999). Private Property’s Philosopher. Mises Review, 5 (1).
  • Hilpinen, R. (red.). (1981a). Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  • Hilpinen, R. (red.). (1981b). New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions, and the Foundations of Ethics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  • Hohfeld, W. (1913). Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23 (1).
  • Hohfeld, W. (1917). Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. Faculty Scholarship Series, artykuł 4378
  • Hoppe, H.-H. (2007). Democracy – The God That Failed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  • Kant, I. (1911). Krytyka praktycznego rozumu. Lwów: Polskie Towarzystwo Filozoficzne.
  • Kant, I. (2001). Krytyka czystego rozumu. Kęty: Wydawnictwo Antyk.
  • Kinsella, S. (1996). New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 12 (2).
  • Kinsella, S. (1999). Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith. Journal of Libertarian Studies,14 (1).
  • Kinsella, S. (2008). Against Intellectual Property. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  • Łukasiewicz, J. (1987). O zasadzie sprzeczności u Arystotelesa. Warszawa: PWN.
  • Łukasiewicz, J. (1988). Sylogistyka Arystotelesa z punktu widzenia współczesnej logiki formalnej. Warszawa: PWN.
  • Mackeldey, F. (1837). Manuel de droit romain. Bruxelles: Société Typographique Belge. Narveson, J. (2001). The Libertarian Idea. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
  • Nawrot, O. (2012). Wprowadzenie do logiki dla prawników. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
  • Nozick, R. (2014). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Parfit, D. (1987). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Pilon, R. (1979). Ordering Rights Consistently: Or What We Do and Do Not Have Rights To. Georgia Law Review, 13 (4).
  • Popper, K.R. (2002). Logika odkrycia naukowego. Warszawa: Aletheia.
  • Rothbard, M. (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press.
  • Rothbard, M. (2009). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  • Singer, J.W. (1982). The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld. Wisconsin Law Review, 975.
  • Smith, G. (1997). Inalienable Rights?. Liberty, 10 (6).
  • Steiner, H. (1994). An Essay on Rights. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Steiner, H. (2013). Directed Duties and Inalienable Rights. Ethics, 123 (2).
  • Taylor, M. (1995). Community, Anarchy and Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • von Mises, L. (2008). Human Action. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  • von Savigny, F.C. (1865). Das Recht des Besitzes: Eine civilistische Abhandlung. Wien: Druck und Verlag von Carl Gerold’s Sohn.
  • von Wright, G.H. (1951). Deontic Logic. Mind, 60 (237)

libertarianizm dobrowolne niewolnictwo niezbywalność praw prawa naturalne Hohfeld logika deontyczna libertarianism voluntary slavery inalienability natural rights deontic logic

Message to:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart