Product Description

As far back as the Magna Carta in 1215, the right of private property was seen as a bulwark of the individual against the arbitrary power of the state. Indeed, common-law tradition holds that "property is the guardian of every other right." And yet, for most of the last seventy years, property rights had few staunch supporters in America.
This latest addition to Oxford's Inalienable Rights series provides a succinct, pointed look at property rights in America--how they came to be, how they have evolved, and why they should once again be a mainstay of the law. Richard A. Epstein, the nation's preeminent authority on the subject, examines all aspects of private property--from real estate to air rights to intellectual property. He takes the reader from the strongly protective property rights advocated by the framers of the Constitution through to the weak property rights supported by Progressive and liberal politicians of the twentieth century and finally to our own time, which has seen a renewed appreciation of property rights in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's landmark Kelo v. New London decision in 2005. The author's own powerful defense of property rights threads through the narrative. Using both political theory and economic analysis, Epstein argues that above all that private property is a sound social institution, and not just an excuse for selfishness and greed. Only a system of private property lets people form and raise families, organize religious and other charitable organizations, and earn a living through honest labor.
Supreme Neglect offers a compact, incisive look at this hotly contested constitutional right, championing property rights as an essential social institution.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #298087 in Books
• Published on: 2008-03-12
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 208 pages

Review

"This book represents a distillation and refinement of a lifetime of thought about private property, the individual, and the state. Epstein's vision of the Takings Clause is provocative and original, and has been powerfully influential with courts and academics alike."--Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Keller Beekman Professor, Columbia Law School
"In this timely and thoughtful book Richard Epstein stresses the importance of private property as a safeguard of individual liberty, and argues convincingly for a vigorous interpretation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."--James W. Ely, Jr., author of The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights
"I have always envied Richard Epstein's awesome ability to boil down the complexities into a pure and powerful dose of common sense. In Supreme Neglect, he demonstrates once again that when it comes to private property and economic liberty, he is simply the best there is."--Timothy Sandefur, Senior Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation, and author of Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America

About the Author

Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1972. He has also been the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000. He is the author of numerous books--including Takings, which is regarded as the bible of the property rights movement--and has written for The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times

Customer Reviews

"Takings" redux
Richard Epstein rocked the legal-academic world in 1985 with his property-right manifesto, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Supreme Neglect is essentially a greatly condensed and somewhat updated version of that earlier work, minus footnotes. If you were enthusiastic about Epstein's original message concerning the vital importance of protecting property rights against state encroachment, you'll probably like Supreme Neglect. If you found Epstein unconvincing in 1985, you'll probably find him more so now. One topic covered in the new book that was not discussed 24 years ago is intellectual property. Unfortunately, Epstein does not give a convincing explanation of why, if the state can create and modify "property rights" in the form of patents and copyrights at will, it should not have the mirror-image power of constraining or eliminating traditional property rights like land ownership as it sees fit. Since his account of property rights rests upon their economic utility, rather than upon the nature of man or the requirements of natural law, Epstein's case for upholding these rights against state usurpation boils down to: abrogating property rights is bad for business. Some readers will find this to be a compelling argument, but I think stronger ones could be advanced.