Sharing in Common: A Republican Defence of Group Ownership

The institution of group ownership has rarely been studied in political philosophy. Instead, most property theories in this discipline focus on arguments for and against individual ownership. When group ownership is discussed at all, moreover, this is often in the specific context of workplace governance. What is lacking is a general normative justification of group ownership that explains when and why it is valuable that individuals share a resource. This dissertation provides such a justification. The particular conception of group ownership that it defends is the institutional realisation of a sharing practice, called sharing in common. In this practice, members of a private group determine collectively and democratically how their shared object may be used. This conception of group ownership is irreducible to individual property rights, because under this institu-ion, individual rights to use and/or derive income from an object are authorised and subject to change by the group’s collective decisions. Group ownership so understood is valuable when and because it secures basic non-domination, and that it is also justified for that reason. People enjoy basic non-domination when they have the capabilities that are reasonably required to resist arbitrary power, and are equally in control of the decisions that affect these basic capabilities. This ideal constitutes the basis for a society of equals, where the normative status that belongs to beings capable of practical reason is affirmed for everyone. This dissertation develops two criteria for judging whether property institutions realise basic non-domination. First, they must promote people's ability to use resources to gain their basic capabilities. Secondly, the institutions must place the people who rely on a resource for their basic capabilities, in control of how that resource may be used. Using common property regimes (CPRs) in natural and agricultural resources as the central case study, the dissertation shows how existing institutions that approach the ideal of sharing in common can succeed on both counts. When democratically organised, CPRs al-low resource users to efficiently share and manage their resource themselves, and thus obtain their own livelihoods on their own terms. Other institutions that approach the ideal of sharing in common, such as insurance mutuals, energy cooperatives, worker cooperatives, and knowledge commons, are also briefly discussed for their potential to secure basic non-domination. The dissertation furthermore clarifies when and why alternative strategies for realising basic non-domination – such as through equal individual property rights, strong exit opportunities, and public ownership – fail to achieve that goal. The resulting theory not only defends a particular conception of ownership, but also provides tools that can facilitate research on ownership institutions and on basic non-domination more generally

Independence in the Commons: How Group Ownership Realises Basic Non-Domination

While republicans have long recognised that individual ownership is important for attaining independence, group ownership institutions remain under-researched, particularly outside the context of firm governance. Seeking to address this gap, this chapter explains whether and how group ownership of different types of resources can contribute to non-domination. It develops a conception of basic non-domination, which consists of the enjoyment of basic capabilities that people require to be able to resist arbitrary power, and of robust control over decisions that affect these capabilities. To contribute to basic non-domination, ownership institutions must, first, promote use of resources such that people can rely on these resources to attain their basic capabilities. Second, they must place the people who rely on a resource for their basic capabilities in control of how that resource may be used. Both criteria can be satisfied under institutions of sharing in common; ownership arrangements in which group members democratically determine how a resource may be used. The chapter shows how group ownership in natural and information resources realises basic non-domination by placing people in control of the resources they need for their empowerment

[Manṭiq Hayjal ... etc., ca. 1937].

Careful copy of a collection (majmūʻah) of philosophical works, opening with an abridged Arabic translation of Hegel's Logic (Wissenschaft der Logik), followed by another abridged Arabic translation of Hegel's Logic in two sections, followed by a work on Hegel's life and thought in three sections, followed by a summary of philosophical developments from Kant to Hegel, followed by a section on modern philosophy from Bax’s Handbook on the history of philosophy in four sections, and concluding with Ibn Rushd's (Averroës) celebrated shorter commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics in three sections.Shelfmark: Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Special Collections Library, Isl. Ms. 924Origin: As appears in colophon on p.114, transcription of the second gathering (kurrāsah) of the second work (an abridgment of Hegel in Arabic) completed 15 December 1937 corresponding to 12 Shawwāl 1356 and 6 Kiyāk [1654]. Likely copied in Egypt in the late 1930s and bound for James Heyworth-Dunne (d.1974).Former shelfmark: Mich. Isl. Ms. temp. no. 73Binding: Boards covered in dark green cloth with dark green leather over spine (quarter binding) ; pastedowns and flyleaves in wove paper printed with a floral vegetal pattern in green ; spine gold-stamped with title and decorative accents over raised bands "منطق هيجل | J.H.D." ; sewing difficult to examine ; stuck-on endbands (blue and white stripe) ; overall in fairly good condition.Support: Lined / ruled wove paper.Script: Ruqʻah ; compact hand, initially carefully executed in a bold line, later much quicker in a finer line ; serifless and freely ligatured with slight effect of inclination toward the right, pointing somewhat careless and in strokes rather than distinct dots.Layout: Written mainly in 25 lines per page.Collation: Pages between sections within works left blank, some serving as 'title pages' (see pp.81, 135, 155, 187, 207, 227, 303, 343) ; pagination in lavender pencil and black ink, Hindu-Arabic numerals (through p.60) ; pagination in pencil, Western numerals, supplied during digitization.Colophon: [Manṭiq Jūrj Wīlhām Farīdrīkh Hayjal] "Scribal," reads "انتهى هذا الملخص من المنطق الهيجلي وقد وقع الفراغ منه في يوم الاربعاء الموافق للخامس عشر من ديسمبر ١٩٣٧ وللثاني عشر من شوال ١٣٥٦ وللسادس من كياك"Title from rubricated heading on incipit page (p.2).Ms. codex.8. p.247-p.366 : Kitāb Mā baʻda al-ṭabīʻah wa-huwa al-qism al-rābiʻ min Talkhīṣ Maqālāt Arīsṭū / li-Abī al-Walīd Muḥammad ibn Rushd.7. p.167-p.246 : al-Falsafah al-ʻaṣrīyah min Tārīkh Bāks.6. p.166 : [blank].5. p.159-p.165 : Nubdhah fī Mujmal al-taṭawwur min Kānt ilá Hayjal.4. p.158 : [blank].3. p.115-p.157 : Hayjal.2. p.61-p.114 : Manṭiq Jūrj Wīlhām Farīdrīkh Hayjal / Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.1. p.2-p.60 : Manṭiq Hayjal / Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.Brockelmann, C. GAL,Careful copy of a collection (majmūʻah) of philosophical works, opening with an abridged Arabic translation of Hegel's Logic (Wissenschaft der Logik), followed by another abridged Arabic translation of Hegel's Logic in two sections, followed by a work on Hegel's life and thought in three sections, followed by a summary of philosophical developments from Kant to Hegel, followed by a section on modern philosophy from Bax’s Handbook on the history of philosophy in four sections, and concluding with Ibn Rushd's (Averroës) celebrated shorter commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics in three sections.Mode of access: Internet.Acquired in the Fall of 1950.On upper pastedown label with ex libris of James Heyworth-Dunne (d.1974), stamped with inventory number, "Ex Libris | J. Heyworth-Dunne | D. Lit. (London) | No 7965" ; possible former inventory mark in pencil on ’title page’ (p.2) "231 / 53" ; UM Library inscription on p.3 "Dunning | Heyworth-Dunne | 6-11-51 | 71955" ; interlinear and marginal corrections in lavender pencil in opening work ; other corrections and numerous marginal glosses in black ink throughout