By: Chris Rath

Chris Rath — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:50:28 +0000

Are these academic, universtity lawyers typical of mouthpieces of the leftists and socialists who have hijacked the education system?
Are lawyers liars? Are their ultimate goal and agenda the destrucion of private property? And the totalitarian govenments’ infringement of the basic human right to private property? Are these lawyers fellow travellers
or in fact Fabian Socialists with their little by little approach
to the implementation of their evil political agenda? are these teachers worthy of our respect or contempt? It would be good to see
an article on how to strengthen property rights!

By: Bob Starr

Bob Starr — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:29:43 +0000

While I often agree with you, I think that you are wrong about the bundle of rights metaphor being the problem with the analysis. The problem is not that an individual can voluntarily fracture his rights and break his bundle any way that he wishes through contract. The problem with law professors’ analysis is who is (that actor that is) fracturing the rights. There is no legal entity of “society”, and the bundle of rights is being fractured without the voluntary consent of the owner of the bundle as would happen through a voluntary contract in trading value for value. Society is no more than the sum of the individuals. Your attack on the metaphor of a bundle of rights seems misplaced when the real problem is accurately identifying that “society” has no authority to violate the rights of the individual. If one or more individuals in society wish to own some of the rights in another person’s bundle of rights, then the only way that those individuals in society can morally obtain the sticks from another’s bundle is to voluntarily trade value for value in a contract. I happen to be an Emory Law graduate, although I entirely disagree with the purpose of the professors’ paper, which you are correct to point out seems to focus on further eroding and violating property rights. However, the bundle of rights metaphor is not the problem because that metaphor can be used with totally voluntary transactions and drafting accurate contracts to fracture the bundle of sticks in ways that both contracting parties are willing to enter into the deal. However, the law professors wrongly focus on the bundle of rights metaphor instead of whether the taking of the sticks in the bundle is a voluntary contract or a coercive government confiscation on behalf of the non-entity of “society”.

Comments on: “How can we most effectively weaken property rights?” – part 2

By: Chris Rath

By: Bob Starr