How Capitalism Infringes Property Rights
| Author | Peter Morriss |
| Date | 01 December 1983 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1983.tb01360.x |
| Published date | 01 December 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political
Studies
(1983),
XXXI,
656-661
How
Capitalism Infringes Property Rights"
PETER
MORRIS
University
of
Liverpool
Open any of the innumerable apologias
for
laissez-faire
capitalism and you
will find somewhere the following story.
A
capitalist economy is characterized by the risk-taking entrepreneur.
Some entrepreneurs will take risks which succeed, and will become rich.
But some risky ventures will fail-such is the nature of risk-taking-and
bankruptcy will ensue. These enterprises that fail will be those that cannot
produce a commodity for which there is a demand at a price at which the
entrepreneur can afford to sell. Such enterprises are (technically) inefficient
and deserve to fail. Capitalism
is
such a successful-and praiseworthy-
form
of
economic organization precisely because it has this inbuilt mech-
anism for rewarding successful risk-taking and rooting
out
inefficient
enterprise.
No
injustice is involved if some would-be capitalists go bankrupt. They
embarked-freely-on the risky business
of
enterprise, tempted by the
great riches that could be made; if they failed, whether through their own
miscalculations or through bad luck, no wrong has been done to them.
They are no more the victims of an injustice than is the gambler at Monte
Carlo who sees his money disappear during the course of
a
disastrous
evening. Those who do not wish to gamble should avoid the world
of
capitalist business as strictly as they should avoid casinos. Those who enter
such places have
no
legitimate cause for complaint if they emerge from
them destitute.
It has often been pointed out that there are many things wrong with this
story.
As
a description
of
the rise of capitalism it is almost farcically inac-
curate; as a description of the psychology of capitalists or of how actual
capitalist societies work it is no better; the efficiency argument is dubious; and
so on. Nevertheless such an account has recently regained popularity amongst
those who wish to claim that capitalism is to be defended because it protects
and secures rights-notably property rights. These modern rights theorists are
not the descendants of Tom Paine: their rights are not the Rights
of
Man.
Rather, the rights they hold sacred are the thoroughly bourgeois rights to own
property and remain secure in the possession of it, unless one explicitly decides
otherwise. In other words, the only way one can be divested of one's (right-
fully acquired) property is through one's own agreement to a contract. It is to
*
1
am grateful for the comments
on
earlier drafts
of
Peter Goodrich, Mik Laver, Jack Lively,
Hillel Steiner, and two anonymous referees for
Politico1 Studies.
This paper has been much
improved as a result. There is still much here, though, with which they would disagree;
I
alone take
responsibility
for
believing in the positions advanced here.
0032-3217/83/04/0656-06/$03.00
0
1983
Political Studies
To continue reading
Request your trial