You're right; property rights as in the sense of owning material goods is no natural right, but it derives from the concept of self-ownership, which is a natural right according to the liberal/libertarian theory. In the truly Lockean sense, property rights are an extension of one's self-ownership, as the labor that one mixes with a previously unowned property is solely his; classical liberalism derives from this notion. The liberal definition of "natural rights," which I don't believe is too different from its republican counterpart, encompasses few other notions than self-ownership.
While Turgot is celebrated as a forefather of economic liberalism, he had a limited understanding of the free market - as laissez-faire economics was not fully formulated until the 19th century - and therefore, his support of imposition of price floor (price floor, right?) on the market does not represent the philosophy itself any more than Friedrich II's support of a freer press somehow demonstrates his support for Kantian republicanism. Government regulation of prices, interfering with the supply and demand trend of the market, is no free market at all; it is central planning and it is collectivism, an indubtible antithesis of economic liberalism.
I fail to see how "economic liberalism" has failed in the developing world when it has not been implemented there in the first place. Unless "economic liberalism" is defined as a corporatist economy that is controlled by Wall Street executives and a few supersized business conglomerates, that is.
To wrap up this long rant(I probably wasted a good part of your narrowly allocated free time, I'm sorry), ownership of property is indeed no natural right, although our definitions of "natural right" seem to differ. I hope I'm not coming off as a butthurt, aggressive libertarian. :/
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-05-23 09:35 pm (UTC)While Turgot is celebrated as a forefather of economic liberalism, he had a limited understanding of the free market - as laissez-faire economics was not fully formulated until the 19th century - and therefore, his support of imposition of price floor (price floor, right?) on the market does not represent the philosophy itself any more than Friedrich II's support of a freer press somehow demonstrates his support for Kantian republicanism. Government regulation of prices, interfering with the supply and demand trend of the market, is no free market at all; it is central planning and it is collectivism, an indubtible antithesis of economic liberalism.
I fail to see how "economic liberalism" has failed in the developing world when it has not been implemented there in the first place. Unless "economic liberalism" is defined as a corporatist economy that is controlled by Wall Street executives and a few supersized business conglomerates, that is.
To wrap up this long rant(I probably wasted a good part of your narrowly allocated free time, I'm sorry), ownership of property is indeed no natural right, although our definitions of "natural right" seem to differ. I hope I'm not coming off as a butthurt, aggressive libertarian. :/