Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
Sto caricando le informazioni... Supreme neglect : how to revive constitutional protection for private property (edizione 2008)di Richard Allen Epstein
Informazioni sull'operaSupreme Neglect: How to Revive Constitutional Protection For Private Property di Richard A. Epstein Nessuno Sto caricando le informazioni...
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro. Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro. nessuna recensione | aggiungi una recensione
As far back as the Magna Carta in 1215, the right of private property was seen as a bulwark of the individual against the arbitrary power of the state. Indeed, common-law tradition holds that ""property is the guardian of every other right."" And yet, for most of the last seventy years, property rights had few staunch supporters in America. This latest addition to Oxford's Inalienable Rights series provides a succinct, pointed look at property rights in America--how they came to be, how they have evolved, and why they should once again be a mainstay of the law. Richard A. Epstein, the nation's Non sono state trovate descrizioni di biblioteche |
Discussioni correntiNessuno
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni... GeneriSistema Decimale Melvil (DDC)346.7304Social sciences Law Private Law North America United StatesClassificazione LCVotoMedia:
Sei tu?Diventa un autore di LibraryThing. |
One topic covered in the new book that was not discussed 24 years ago is intellectual property. Unfortunately, Epstein does not give a convincing explanation of why, if the state can create and modify "property rights" in the form of patents and copyrights at will, it should not have the mirror-image power of constraining or eliminating traditional property rights like land ownership as it sees fit. Since his account of property rights rests upon their economic utility, rather than upon the nature of man or the requirements of natural law, Epstein's case for upholding these rights against state usurpation boils down to: abrogating property rights is bad for business. Some readers will find this to be a compelling argument, but I think stronger ones could be advanced. ( )