A Living for Everyone
Does a state merely protect what people happen to own, or must it first make sure each has something? Fichte takes the second view and follows it all the way.
Most theories of right, Fichte complains, have the state guard whatever possessions it finds. He holds that its purpose is first to give each person what is theirs and only then to protect it. Property in the first instance is an exclusive right to a free activity, such as making clothes or shoes, and everyone must be able to live about as pleasantly as everyone else. So the state sets the numbers of farmers, craftsmen and merchants, fixes prices, and keeps the whole in balance.
- property
- property rights
- labor
- economic justice
- rights
- social contract
- division of labor
- economic planning
- agriculture
- value theory
- value
- wealth
- poverty
- state
- state power
- state regulation
- economic regulation
- exchange
- political philosophy
Enter a dialogue
- Property, you argue, is first not a thing but an exclusive right to an activity, such as making shoes. What changes once owning means a right to work?
- Everyone, you say, must be able to live about as pleasantly as everyone else — able to, not obliged to. Why does that small distinction matter so much?
- Your state decides how many may farm, make goods or trade, and fixes the prices. Where is there room left for anyone's free choice of work?
- A craftsman works hard all year and still cannot afford what he needs, because prices swing with the market. What does your state owe him?
- Most thinkers, you complain, let the state guard whatever property it finds. Why is protecting existing possessions not enough to make a state just?