Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a new account of libertarian rectification. Those claiming property rights that limit the liberty of others must contribute to the correction of inequalities caused by past violations of libertarian rights. The function of this principle is not to identify the responsibilities of those with legitimate holdings, but to explain how there can be holdings that are legitimate no matter how unequal when holdings did not arise in accordance with the ideal historical process. Patterning is part of the principle, rather than a second-stage approximation given historical uncertainty. The principle targets inequalities generated by violations of libertarian rights, but involves no commitment to equality in other dimensions, nor to maintaining equality in face of people’s permissible choices about how to use their holdings. The paper revises Rothbard’s suggestion that when restitution of property to its rightful owner is not possible, the holding reverts to the commons and so becomes available for appropriation. The paper restores the Lockean proviso on appropriation, in this account, and argues that the historical shadow of the proviso should be more demanding in the context of inequality caused by injustice than it is in the context of innocent environmental and social change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".