论文部分内容阅读
本文提出了产权滥用原则的概念及规范基础。当所有权人对某事的决定只是为了制造损害时,他们就在滥用他们的权利,无论损害是基于其本身的意图(恶意)而产生或被视为实现某些可能有价值的、隐蔽的结果的手段(敲诈)而产生。理论家们曾试图利用效用最大化或强制美德来解释有关恶意的限制。但是,这些理论只是对所有权人的自由提出了若干重要的外部限制,却仍然无法解释有关敲诈的外部限制。所有权的政治基础可以解释其内在限制。所有权赋予的权威可以回答一个所谓的“基本问题”——什么构成了一个事物的价值,进而可被用来克服自然状态下的资格与协调这两个相伴而生的问题。我们都有兴趣协调我们对事物的使用方式以避免浪费和冲突,但我们每个人都面临着一个道德义务,即需要克制把自己对“基本问题”的回答强加在他人身上。私有财产制度可以克服这一困境,但其政治基础同时也带来合法性约束。所有权人负责对事物作出决定,但这项权利不能延伸到利用资源去满足恶意或为了某些更远的目标而获取影响力。这些都不是对“基本问题”的答案,而是试图利用所有权的地位去支配他人。当所有权人以这种方式越权时,他们就滥用了权利。
This paper presents the concept of abuse of property rights and normative basis. When the owner of a property makes a decision that something is done solely to create the damage, they are abusing their rights, whether the damage is based on their own intent (malice) or is deemed to result in some potentially valuable, covert result The means (extortion) arising. Theorists have attempted to use the maximization of utility or the virtue of virtue to explain the restrictions on malice. However, these theories only present a number of important external restrictions on the freedom of the owners but still can not explain the external restrictions on extortion. The political basis for ownership can explain its inherent limitations. The authority given by ownership can answer a so-called “fundamental problem” - what constitutes the value of a thing and can then be used to overcome the two attendant problems of qualification and coordination in the natural state. We are both interested in coordinating our use of things to avoid wastage and conflict, but each one of us faces a moral obligation to exercise restraint in imposing ourselves on others as the answer to “basic questions.” The system of private property can overcome this dilemma, but its political foundation also brings legitimacy constraints. The owner is responsible for making decisions about things, but this right can not be extended to exploit resources to satisfy the evil or gain influence for some of the more distant purposes. These are not the answers to “fundamental problems ”, but try to dominate others by using the status of ownership. Ownership rights are abused when they are overrun in this way.