A Review of Legal Foundations of Capitalism, by John R. Commons
Warner W. Gardner
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2024.2418268
2024-11-29
Journal of Economic Issues
Abstract:1 The scarcity of productive facilities is ignored by Commons except so far as it is implicit in the scarcity of nature, Such things as engineering technique are embraced in the term. 2 The parenthetical elaboration of the thesis of the physical sanction is the reviewer's notion of what Commons' approach would be had he thought it necessary to expand his simple dogma: law rests on physical coercion. 3 Commons offers no apology for omitting specific discussion of working rules based on custom. 4 Commons is some places seems to define intangible property as above (pp. 172–182) More often, he calls it the exchange value of anything (pp. 19, 159). In some places he includes, as above, any special market advantage (pp. 172–182). In other he excludes "privileged" sources of good will, as franchises (pp. 191–195), while retaining copyrights and patents (pp. 274–282). 5 In the subsequent discussion Commons tends to take this for granted. At times (p. 268) he says that equal rights of access to markets are made valueless through competition. 6 In developing the citizen's participation in sovereignty, an excess of enthusiasm leads Commons there to define liberty as the mere absence of restraint or compulsion (pp. 118–119). 7 Not explicit in Commons. 8 The metaphysical link between the power of liberty and that of property is the responsibility of the reviewer. 9 The reviewer is by no means certain that Commons recognizes, or subscribes to, this identity of powers. 10 Commons refuses, or fails, to concede the qualification. 11 In a subsequent passage Commons, not too happily, ignores this reassurance. There he breaks the will down into its "distinguishable but inseparable" attributes of "habits, ideals, definitions, investigations, classifications, valuations, choices, behavior." (pp. 342–251, 349) 12 The reviewer assumes this phrasing to be the rough equivalent of Commons': "the moralist or the trial court already has a particular act in mind, and he is concerned only with the quality of the act" (p.70). 13 Commons, p. 113, slightly modified by reviewer. 14 Commons' attempts to symbolize this reciprocity by enlarging his diagram to make the right-exposure of the one party become his right-exposure-liberty-duty, with a similar expansion of the correlatives and equivalents. Applicable to different legal relations (even though between the same parties with respect to the same transaction) this device seems but to lend confusion 15 Reviewer: Commons does not discuss liabilities. A deliberate distortion. Commons resolutely excludes all privilege from his definition or good will and commonly regards competitive rights of access to markets as valueless; above, notes 4, 5. 17 Commons' insistence that good will contains no element of privilege leads him to say that this duty not to compete is the only consideration for the purchaser's contract (pp. 261–270). Yet if good will necessarily rests upon an advantageous position—whether the "privilege" be created by government or the individual—this advantage, too, must be sold. The four subsequent paragraphs accept, pro tem, Commons' distinction between good will and privilege. 18 Commons says that the privilege was granted by the sovereign on condition that the prices be reasonable. For this reason he excludes privilege.as a source of value against the sovereign, though retaining it as against the public. 19 Commons starts with the ethical factor and arrives at original cost. (pp. 207–208) To the reviewer the intervening reasoning is incomprehensible. The above was devised as a substitute. 20 To establish this version of due process, Commons cites: for due process as to property rights, First Minnesota Rate Case, 134 U.S. 418 (1890); C., B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 580 (1896); as to personal rights, most of the cases excluding the Bill of Rights from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (making no mention of the "surplusage" theory); Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884); Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 0 (16 5); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900); Weet v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258 (1904); Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1904); Frank v. Magnum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915). The tests, equal protection and value of the deprivation, have no support in citations. 21 p. 360 22 Toward the concept here presented the reviewer confesses vaguely sympathetic feeling rather than understanding. Justice to Commons' presentation (pp. 9, 380–382) demands its inclusion, however 23 "the concept of choices formulated by John Locke and repeated in the law books ... the will chooses between an 'act' and an 'omission'—between an acting and a not-acting. As far as quantitative dimensions go there is none" (p. 70) 24 p. 67, Commons' italics. 25 p. 116, Commons' italics 26 Formerly an enthusiastic advocate of this position, his apostasy may be traced to R. L. Hale. Cf., also, Morris R. Cohen, Property and Sovereignty. 27 The rev -Abstract Truncated-
economics