<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Trespassing as a Way of Life &#187; Legal theory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blog.ellerman.org/category/legal-theory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org</link>
	<description>An interdisciplinary blog on the human sciences and current events</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:19:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is Wall Street Capitalism really &#8220;The Model&#8221;?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/12/is-wall-street-really-the-model/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/12/is-wall-street-really-the-model/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absentee ownership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japanese-style firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall-Steet Capitalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=51</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The continuing financial collapse of 2008, which caused trillions of dollars of damages to most everyone but the Wall Street elites, will perhaps lead to some hesitation in the reflex to evoke the Wall Street model—if not to some more fundamental rethinking of the issues. Perhaps the Occupy Wall Street movements around the world are the beginning of such a rethinking. In any case, our purpose here is such a rethinking by going back to some of the basic principles that are supposed to be exemplified in a market economy.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/12/is-wall-street-really-the-model/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Free Cities: What could be wrong with that?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/10/free-cities-what-could-be-wrong-with-that/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/10/free-cities-what-could-be-wrong-with-that/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Oct 2011 18:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development aid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=42</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This post is an update of a previous post on The Charter Cities Debate and Democratic Theory. A new twist on Paul Romer&#8217;s idea of charter cities has come to my attention. It is promoted under the name of &#8220;free cities.&#8221; The home base seems to be the Free Cities Institute headquartered at the Francisco [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2011/10/free-cities-what-could-be-wrong-with-that/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inalienable Rights: Part III A Litmus Test for Liberalism</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-iii-a-litmus-test-for-liberalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-iii-a-litmus-test-for-liberalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fatal Flaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inalienable rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Rawls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Montesquieu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pact of subjection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Nozick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-rental contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-sale contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=31</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Surely it is not too much to ask a modern liberal theory of justice that it provide a coherent account of why some contracts, e.g., self-sale contract, should be deemed invalid and why the rights such contracts would legally alienate are inalienable. In that sense, the theory of inalienable rights provides a historical litmus test for liberalism.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-iii-a-litmus-test-for-liberalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fatal Flaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inalienable rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nontransferability of human action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nontransferability of human decision-making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nozick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal alienation contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=24</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is the inalienable rights theory that descends from the Reformation through the Enlightenment and that answers the classical apologies for slavery and autocracy based on implicit or explicit voluntary contracts?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inalienable Rights: Part II Intellectual History</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-ii-intellectual-history/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-ii-intellectual-history/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fatal Flaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hegel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hutcheson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inalienable rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberty of Conscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luther]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reformation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spinoza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stoics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where did the ideas behind the inalienable rights theory emerge in the history of thought?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/inalienable-rights-part-ii-intellectual-history/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why is Non-democratic Government Wrong? Involuntariness or Treating Persons as Things?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/why-is-non-democratic-government-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/why-is-non-democratic-government-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:43:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alienable natural rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent vs. coercion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delegation vs. alienation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gierke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grotius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hobbes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lex regia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nozick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pactum subjectionis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Aquinas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translatio vs. concessio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=13</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is Democracy Government based only on the Consent of the Governed? Classical liberalism takes the most basic question about a social institution as: &#8220;consent or coercion.&#8221; Democracy is often characterized as &#8220;government based on the consent of the governed&#8221; so non-democratic government is then typically condemned as being involuntary and coercive. This common condemnation of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/why-is-non-democratic-government-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are  the self-sale and self-rental contracts on the same moral footing?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/are-the-self-sale-and-self-rental-contracts-on-the-same-moral-footing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/are-the-self-sale-and-self-rental-contracts-on-the-same-moral-footing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J. Philmore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murray Rothbard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renting people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[specific performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntary slavery contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=14</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Neverfox's comment to my last post, Why Was Slavery Wrong?, was so rich that I will reply by this new posting, rather than just a comment on the comment. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/03/are-the-self-sale-and-self-rental-contracts-on-the-same-moral-footing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why was Slavery Wrong? Involuntariness or Treating Persons as Things?</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/why-was-slavery-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/why-was-slavery-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alienable natural rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blackstone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hobbes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Locke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nozick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pufendorf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renting people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roman law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seabury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntary slavery contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=12</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Involuntariness&#8221; is the usual answer. Indeed, classical liberalism takes the most basic framing of a social question as: &#8220;consent or coercion?&#8221;  In this view, democracy is characterized as government &#8220;with the consent of the governed&#8221; so slavery and non-democratic government were both condemned for the lack of consent. This common condemnation of slavery on the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/02/why-was-slavery-wrong-involuntariness-or-treating-persons-as-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Associational speech: Citizens United vs. FEC</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/01/associational-speech-citizens-united-vs-fec/</link>
		<comments>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/01/associational-speech-citizens-united-vs-fec/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Ellerman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Current events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[associational speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate personhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workplace democracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blog.ellerman.org/?p=4</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is the basis for the liberal-progressive anathema to corporate speech?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.blog.ellerman.org/2010/01/associational-speech-citizens-united-vs-fec/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

