Kant To Defend Private Property Rights

"Private Property Rights" is a legal system that closely related to the state administration and social life, which continues being paid close attention and praised the valuation differing all the time through ages. Judging from available data now, academic circles most probably adopt the research route following sociology to examine the influence that the "Private Property Rights", as a positive right, gives to the real society, and then to explore the suitable attitude that the government should take to the "Private Property Right". But they have seldom asked the legitimacy basis of the legal right "Private Property Right". In this thesis, the author studies the congenital legitimacy basis of "Private Property Rights" from the visual angle of jurisprudence following the core jurisprudence book of Kant, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice.The main body of this thesis is divided into three chapters, and the first chapter is the main part, where a clear point of Kant's congenital demonstration about "Private Property Rights" will be given. This process of demonstration abides by Kant's binary partition of "Private Property Rights", and we will study "Private Property Rights" as natural rights or positive rights respectively. First, the demonstration of "To own any external object of my will as mine is possible", is meaning to ask "what is the legitimacy basis of 'Private Property Rights' as a natural right?" Secondly, the demonstration of "A permanent acquisition of an external object can be possible only in a citizen constitutional society", is meaning to ask "what is the legitimacy basis of 'Private Property Rights' as a positive right?" The answer to the former question composes Kant's private right theory, and the second composes Kant's country theory. "Private Property Rights" is the transition of the two, and it also becomes the mainline running through Kant's jurisprudence theory.The thesis begins with the definition and discrimination of the key words "mine" and "yours", "innate" and "external" to understand Kant's theory of "Private Property Rights" accurately. The former refers to the entirety of all rights, and the differentiation to distinguish "innate" and "external" is whether it has "the identity with the personality of a right subject". And, the discrimination of "innate law" and "external law" buried a hint foreshadowing for the studies of the relation between the positive "Private Property Rights" and the country. Then we'll study moral principle and right principle respectively, and because the right principle is containing the moral principle and ensuring the external realization of the moral principle, the right principle is advantageous in moral principle. Subsequently, the author point out the moral connotation of "Private Property Rights",and give the conclusion after demonstration that "as natural rights, the congenital legitimacy basis of the possibility of 'Private Property Rights' is the universal freedom principle—moral principle, and the congenital legitimacy basis of necessity of 'Private Property Rights' is the right principle." After the demonstration of the legitimacy basis of the general existence of "Private Property Rights", the author continued to study the legitimacy basisi of the free will to acquire "Private Property Rights". The author mainly analyses "Postulate of Public Rights", compared with Rousseau's "Social contract theory", and "The First Holder"theory, compared with Locker's "Work Holder" theory, showing the indepth idea of Kant. At last, as a positive law principle that can make external law, "Private Property Rights" is related to Kant's country theory in logic and fact.In the second chapter, based on the previous transcendental demonstration, the author point out that the real meaning of "Private Property Rights" is not "a right for the person to the thing", but "the conduct regulations between persons", means the harmonious coexistence conditions of free wills. Because Kant built "Private Property Rights" in his transcendental philosophy system, it has peculiar theory characteristic.Without thinking of the material of "Private Property Rights", it is pure and formal. Without thinking of the subjective motive, it is external and practical. Because its true meaning is that every free will establishes jurisdiction for the others' free action, it's mutual forced For the three points above, Kant believed the self-discipline ability of a person abundantly and ensured the dignity of a person all the time, so Kant's "Private Property Rights" is sacred and detached, which is absolutely different from the utilitarian. The other part of the second chapter summarized the contribution of Kant's "Private Property Rights" theory in the legal thought history. Because of the binary partition of "Private Property Rights", Kant excluded the obstruction from varied phenomena to clarify that the essence of "Private Property Rights" is "conduct regulations between free wills", which have been decided congenitally. Kant established a rational right system, so he gave "Private Property Rights" deeper morality intension. Moreover, because Kant's country theory is built on "Private Property Rights" theory, Kant demonstrated the legitimacy basis of country once more, and he testified that using public law to protect "Private Property Rights" is objective necessity.In the third chapter, the author attempted to understand Kant's "Private Property Rights" theory more clearly according to Hegel's criticizing and inheriting of Kant in his book Philosophy of Rights. As a latecomer, Hegel absorbed much from Kant's idea, however, he denied Kant's hypothesis of the important concept "thing in itself", and he thought the basis of "Private Property Rights" is that it is "the first existence of freedom". Hegel also criticized Kant the way of classifying rights into "the right to a physical thing", "the right to the performance of an action by another person" and "the right to the status of another person insofar as he has the other person at his disposal in a relation in which the other person also has rights against him", and he thought the innate character of second one is "the right to a physical thing", and it can only become true by contract exchange.