劳动理论可以正当化企业数据财产权吗?

Can Labor Theory Legitimize Corporate Data Property Rights?

按照洛克的观点,人类走出自然状态,成立政府,只是面对自然状态下的“诸多不便”,为了保护财产权而采取的“无奈之举”。在人类不得不依赖政府保护财产权的情况下,劳动理论通过论证何者构成自然法上的财产权,为政府设立实证法上的财产权提供了基础,划定了边界。劳动的对象是共有财产,劳动之所以可以正当化私有财产权,根本原因在于其作为“意图性”行动与人格之间具有同一性。即便假设洛克的劳动理论完全正确,该理论也不能正当化企业数据财产权,原因有二:其一,作为企业劳动对象的个人信息同样是“意图性”行动的产物,并非共有财产而是信息主体的财产;其二,网络空间的自然状态并不存在“洛克式”自然状态的“诸多不便”,故即便企业数据财产权是一项自然法上的财产权,也无需通过实证法赋权的方式予以保护。

According to Locke,mankind’s emergence from the state of nature and the establishment of government was a“desperate measure”to protect property rights in the face of inconveniences in the state of nature.When mankind had to rely on a government to protect property rights,the labor theory provides a ground for the government to establish property rights in empirical law and define its boundaries by arguing what constitutes property rights under natural law.The object of labor is property in common.The fundamental reason why labor can legitimize private property rights is because of its identity with personality as an“intentional”action.Even assuming that Locke’s labor theory is entirely correct,it does not justify the corporate data property right for two reasons.First,personal information,which is the object of corporate labor,is also the product of“intentional”action,thus is a property in common but a property of the information subject;second,the state of nature in cyberspace is not like the“Lockean”state of nature,so even if the corporate data property right is a property right in the natural law,it does not need to be protected by means of empirical law empowerment.