Property - Intro to Political Economy, Lecture3
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- sites.duke.edu/intrope/
COURSE OVERVIEW:
Introduction to Political Economy is a self-contained and nontechnical overview of the intellectual history of political economy, the logic of microeconomics, and the definitions used in macroeconomics. It introduces the notion of a political economy, emphasizing the moral and ethical problems that markets solve, and fail to solve.
LECTURE OVERVIEW:
1. Is economics a science?
2. Do institutions evolve (coyotes), or emerge from conscious choice (chihuahuas)? Another example is also given, comparing Jewish dietary and food preparation rules with "modern" food handling rules based on a theory of germ pathology. They are surprisingly similar, showing that there are at least two paths to development of rules.
3. The briefest statement of the best argument for capitalism is NOT greed, it's not self-interest
It's the relation between property, voluntary exchange, and price. These have a connected set of consequentialist and natural rights implications. No way to evaluate them separately, because they can't really be disconnected.
4. The political theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are discussed, and the implications for the morality and importance of property described.
5. Does your dog own your house?
6. Two court cases are discussed: (a) Hinman v. Pacific Air (1936) and (b) Jacques v. Steenberg Homes (1997). The implications for our understanding, and the social status, of property, is discussed.
READINGS:
Locke, John. Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 5, “On Property,” (www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr0... ) (OPTIONAL: Background on Locke, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (plato.stanford.edu/entries/loc... )
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “Discourse on Inequality,” Part II. (www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_... ) (OPTIONAL: Background on Rousseau, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu/entries/rou...)
Schmidtz, David. 1994. “The Institution of Property.” Social Philosophy and Policy. 11:42-62. (davidschmidtz.com/sites/defaul... paper/3/InstitutionProperty2012.pdf)
Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 1936, 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. (www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?... 1950-1985)
Jacques v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 1997, Wisconsin. (www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/Di... )
Hardin, Garrett. 1969. “Tragedy of the Commons.” Science. (www.sciencemag.org/content/162... )
Subscribe to our TH-cam Channel for more!
Follow us at / dukepolisci
Like us at / dukepolisci
Follow us at / dukepolisci
Produced by Shaun King, Duke University Department of Political Science Multimedia Specialist
« Law is the product of reason, not legislation »
« there’s no reason to define legislation as being law »
« Sovereignty lies with the individual/people »
Outstanding ! Love it !
Not all economists have failed to predict or forecast economic cycles of boom to bust. There are economists who have moved away from the theoretical assumptions of neoclassical economics and returned to the perspectives that are consistent with real world experience. Economics professors such as William Vickrey and Mason Gaffney embraced the approach advanced by political economists of the 17th and 18th centuries (and further developed by Henry George in the 19th century). What they argue in their writings is that the three factor model of political economy is far more helpful than treating all economic inputs as different forms of capital with essentially the same characteristics. Nature, for one thing, has a zero cost of production in terms of labor and capital goods.
The perspective of political economy carries with it fundamental challenge to societal laws that secure and protect claims to property in nature by individuals and private entities. Political economy argues the moral case for a labor and capital goods basis for private property.
As discussed in this lecture, Locke's Proviso challenges the moral basis for the acquisition of huge territorial estates left unimproved. John Locke ventures into this realm of analysis but cannot bring himself to declare the rentier societal framework to be unjust.
Locke offered an important beginning point in the discussion of what constitutes just law by distinguishing between acts that fall within the realm of liberty or (in violation of liberty) in the realm of license. He could not bring himself to look too closely at forms of economic license, or privilege. Richard Cantillon was one of the first to do so, calling for the societal collection of land rents as necessary to a state of equality of opportunity. These same issues were addressed by Anne Robert Jacques Turgot and other members of the physiocratic school and by Adam Smith. Thus, the correct societal response to Locke's Proviso is the physiocratic call for the taxation of land rent (i.e., the impot unique).
Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A.
Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
Ww
The intro is so cool so does the lecture
Excellent lecturer!
I feel like a graduate after this lecture
Thank you for posting this series.
This is gold.
Law is the product of reason not legislation. Nailed it!!👍
That is obviously untrue. Tautological, even.
@@bucketiii7581 Would that be true for regulations? Thanks!
@@bucketiii7581 I think that Law, as used in that point of the class, is related to Law of Nature, Law of Gravity and not in the legal sense.
Yo dawg...I'm the dawg hahaha so underrated. Great lectures
Thanks
I am pathetic that way
I think we can say Economics is about measurement, especially in macroeconomics. For example, GDP, unemployment rate, inflation rate .... are all about measurement.
Mathematics is about measurement. Economics is the phenomenon of the production and allocation of scarce resources by acting man who looks to improve his lot as he defines it.
@@patrick4978 you are trying to make the mathematical approaches to economics to be a different subject, but in fact we cannot manage to really understand the economics with the use of some numerical comparisons, to say the least. Without this all we can say is to describe what economics looks like without being able to apply logic to how it works.
Lol I’m not going to lie I was definitely falling asleep but I do get what you mean lol first, the world is everyone’s. Second view , the world is whatever one person makes of his own.
If he is using liberty in the Hohfeldian sense then he is wrong that anyone can do something. Having a liberty (or privilege) in that sense only means you are not under a duty to refrain from doing that. I wouldn't assume he is using it in that sense, but he seems to dwell on the legal classifications a lot, which implies Hohfeld for classifications of rights.
Maimonides is from the 12th century. I beliefve the Kosher rules come from Deutoronomy - I'm not sure.
Ad coelum is pronounced differently. Greetings from Italy
Macroeconomics has recently become a true science instead as a pseudo one! This change is because my new book on theoretical macroeconomics "Consequential Macroeconomics--Rationalizing About How our System Works" has been written using a formal engineering approach and this means clear statements of axioms, assumptions, definitions (of variables) and logical and sensible analysis. And incidentally Henry George (my favorite economist) wrote"The more hawks the least chickens but the more men the more chickens" which is a way to begin the logic. For an e-copy of my book write to chesterdh@hotmail.com and dispel the many poorly expressed facts about our dismal subject.
Economics doesn’t mimic the natural sciences as your comment clearly implies, nor can it since it doesn’t deal with natural phenomena carried out through physical mechanics. The best you can do with “rational” models is to elucidate certain phenomena in isolation to improve understanding of those phenomena. In other words, they are merely tools of analysis, not actual explanations of anything in themselves, and definitely not useful for predicting outcomes.
@@patrick4978 The fact that the way the structure of our social system has developed can not be seen as only a "rational model", much as it is suggested by this term. There has also been the influence of what logically is a natural way for us to live in groups, to share things we make and to specialize in making particular usefull but differentr kinds of goods. The thinking about this necessary development in our more civilized way of life must reflect that what has happened is a natural process that comes from our social behavious of various kinds. Compared to animals which are less evolved, we are a super level of the natural process when these animals first discovered that they can do better when they cooperate in certain activities, even though simultaneously they are visciously competitive in others.
The right liberty distinction specified here is ridiculous.
Everything in this lecture is likely to be ridiculous, based on my listening of the previous one. But here goes anyway.
HEHE
It's only me who feel like I am taking class From Barack Obama 😮?
Now I can’t unhear it lol I have 20 mins left 😂☝🏾