G. A. Cohen on Self-Ownership, Property, and ... - Tom G. Palmer

226 Critical Review Vol. fa, No. 3sured when that egalitarian hypo thesis about ownership of externalresources is conjoined with the thesis of self-ownership.” <strong>Cohen</strong> concludesthat “equality had indeed been derived with no breach of therules of self-ownership” (ibid.), a result that, when conjoined withadditional arguments, “succeeded in exploding the libertarian posi-*tion” (ibid., IS).The argumeneonce one gets past <strong>Cohen</strong>’s strange assumptions-isingenious and has been extraordinarily influential. Wil Kymlicka(1990, II~), for example, asks, in his Contemporary Polirical Philosophy:An Introduction, “What would happen if the world was [sic] jointlyowned, and hence not subject to unilateral privatization? There are avariety of possible outcomes, but in general they will negate the inegalitarianimplications of self-ownership.”2 Kymlicka cites, withoutrehearsing his argument, <strong>Cohen</strong>’s authority in support of this strongclaim. More recently, Justin Weinberg (1997, 324) has reproducedparts of <strong>Cohen</strong>’s argument in an article in Critical Review, concludingthat “<strong>Cohen</strong> shows that libertarianism cannot be defended in the waythat most libertarian philosophers want to defend it.”3The conclusion that <strong>Cohen</strong> reaches and that has been so iduentidis, however, based on errors in <strong>Cohen</strong>’s reasoning. There are numeroussteps in the argument that may be open to objection, but evengranting all of his assumptions, the logic of the argument fails.I shall first outline <strong>Cohen</strong>’s aims and general procedure. Second, Ishall identify two crucial moves in his influential argument. Third, Ishall show that the fvst move is insupportable. Fourth, I shall showthat the second move is based on a confusion. I examine only twosteps of <strong>Cohen</strong>’s argument, but they are vitally important to his conclusionsand, if they are wrong, his polemic against property in one’sperson, and against attempts to ground several property on this foundation,is severely weakened.Finally, I will conclude with some general remarks about wherethis leaves <strong>Cohen</strong> and the issue of property rights. <strong>Cohen</strong> asserts thatlibertarianism is unjustified if we grant his assumption-offered withoutany argument whatsoever-that communism is justified. I concludeby rebutting this strange position.Before turning directly to <strong>Cohen</strong>’s case, I should offer a justificationfor plunging the reader into an often complicated and technicalargument, so much so that few readers have bothered to read it carefully.<strong>Cohen</strong>’s mistakes, although fatal to his enterprise of undermininglibertarianism, are instructive. <strong>Cohen</strong> does not succeed in “ex-