Unjust Enrichment and Libertarianism

• Autorzy: Łukasz Dominiak
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The present paper takes on the question of whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is compatible with libertarianism. Despite Walter Block's recent arguments to the contrary, the paper argues that unless a gain is received in accordance with the libertarian principles of justice, it is without a basis and thus unjust. This fact alone proves that the concept of unjust enrichment is compatible with libertarianism. Besides, even though it is true - as Block claims - that forcing the recipient of an unjust gain to return it or pay for it involves positive duties and is therefore incompatible with libertarianism, the present paper argues that the practical consequences of this fact would be negligible, for compensatory schemes would develop on the free market anyway in justice-preserving steps. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Profit; Ethics; Political doctrine; Libertarianism; Unjust enrichment

PL

Zysk; Etyka; Doktryny polityczne; Libertarianizm; Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie

• Czasopismo: Polish Political Science Review. Polski Przegląd Politologiczny
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: Vol. 10, Iss. 2
• Strony: 1--13

Twórcy

autor

Łukasz Dominiak

• Nicolaus Copernicus University

Bibliografia

• Barker, Melissa A. (1983), The Doctrines of Specification and Accession: Potential Bases for Legal Ownership through Labor?, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 4(1), 1-17.
• Birks, Peter (2005), Unjust Enrichment, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Block, Walter E. (2018a), Defending the Undefendable, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
• Block, Walter E. (2018b), Defending the Undefendable II, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
• Block, Walter E. (2016), Forestalling, Positive Obligations and the Lockean and Blockian Provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella, Ekonomia-Wroclaw Economic Review, 22(3), 27-41.
• Block, Walter E. (2013), Legalize Blackmail, Straylight Publishing, Chalmette.
• Block, Walter E. (2004), Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children's Rights, International Journal of Social Economics, 31 (3), 275-286.
• Block, Walter E. (2019), Libertarian Punishment Theory and Unjust Enrichment, Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 103-108.
• Block, Walter E. (2010), Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique," Libertarian Papers, 2 (Art. 4), 1-11.
• Dannemann, Gerhard (2009), The German Law of Unjustified Enrichment and Restitution, Oxford University Press, New York.
• The Digest of Justinian (1985), English translation edited by Alan Watson, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
• Dominiak, Łukasz & Block, Walter E. (2017), "Libertarian Theory of Bribery and Incitement: A Reformulation," MEST Journal, 5(2), 95-101.
• Dominiak, Łukasz (2017), The Blockian proviso and the rationality of property rights, Libertarian Papers 9(1): 114-128.
• Dominiak, Łukasz (2019), Must right-libertarians embrace easements by necessity?, Diametros: An Online Journal of Philosophy, 16 (60): 34-51.
• Dominiak, Łukasz (2021), Libertarian easements revisited, Ekonomia-Wroclaw Economic Review, 27(1): 27-35.
• Hohfeld, Wesley N. (1913), Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, Yale Law Journal, 23(1), 16-59.
• Feinberg, Joel (1984), Harm to Others, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Fletcher, George P. (2000), Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2001), Democracy -The God That Failed, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
• Kinsella, Stephan N. (2007), The Blockian Proviso, Mises Wire, September 11, URL = https://mises.org/blog/blockean-proviso [Accessed 24.08.2018].
• Lorenzen, Ernest G. (1925), Specification in the Civil Law, Yale Law Journal, 35(1), 29-47.
• Merrill, Thomas W. (2009), Accession and Original Ownership, Journal of Legal Analysis, 1(2), 459-510.
• Moore, Michael S. (1993), Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and Its Implications for Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Narveson, Jan (2001), The Libertarian Idea, Broadview Press, Peterborough.
• Nozick, Robert (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
• Pérez Medina, Esteban, Bagus, Philipp (2018), A Critique of the Pure Natural Law Approach to Loan Maturity Mismatching and Fractional Reserve Banking, Political Dialogues: Journal of Political Theory, 24, 11-22.
• Rothbard, Murray N. (1998), The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York.
• Rothbard, Murray N. (2006), For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
• Rothbard, Murray N. (2009), Man, Economy, and State, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
• Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N.Y. 379 (N.Y. 1850).
• Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (1987), Moral Dilemmas and 'Ought and Ought Not', Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17(1), 127-139.
• Stein, Peter (1972), The Two Schools of Jurists in the Early Roman Principate, Cambridge Law Journal, 31(1), 8-31.
• Steiner, Hillel (2019), Asymmetric Information, Libertarianism, and Fraud, Review of Social Economy, 77(2), 94-107.
• Steiner, Hillel (1994), An Essay on Rights, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
• van Dun F. (2009), Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict, in J.G. Hülsmann, Stephan Kinsella (eds), Property, Freedom, & Society, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, 223-234.
• von Savigny, Friedrich C. ([1848] 1979), Treatise on Possession; or, the Jus Possessionis of the Civil Law, Hyperion Press, Westport.
• Wetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311 (Mich. 1871).
• Wood, Thomas (1721), A New Institute of the Imperial or Civil Law. With Notes Shewing in some Principal Cases amongst other Observations, How the Canon Law, the Laws of England, and the Laws and Customs of other Nations differ from it , Richard Sare, London.
• Zhang, Quinn (2020), Note. Accession on the Frontiers of Property, Harvard Law Review, 133(2381), 2381-2402.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/ppsr-2022-0009