Freedom and slavery: the birth of capital — Josh Holroyd

Lesson in economic history. Podcast and transcript.

Socialist Appeal
Freedom and slavery: the birth of capital

Josh Holroyd

Oleg Komlik — The Goose and the Common — The Privatization of Public Space

An anonymous 18th century poem on enclosure of the commons. The result was the real tragedy of the commons for most people.

Economic Sociology and Political Economy
The Goose and the Common — The Privatization of Public Space
Oleg Komlik | founder and editor-in-chief of the ES/PE, Chairman of the Junior Sociologists Network at the International Sociological Association, a PhD Candidate in Economic Sociology in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Ben-Gurion University, and a Lecturer in the School of Behavioral Sciences at the College of Management Academic Studies

Barkley Rosser — More On Owning Unowned Land

Economics, law, and the origin of property rights.

Merrill cites John Locke on this who wrote, amazingly enough, that we should think of the world as originally "being America," that is a giant commons. For Locke it was mixing one's labor with the land that established ownership, a labor theory of ownership as it were. The matter of "accession" is posed as an alternative, but this simply involves a modification of this labor mixing principle, altering it to the first owner is the one who establishes effective control over the land. Once that is recognized, then a chain is established that simply continues, which is why we have this matter of the code holding when land first becomes clearly owned being the relevant one for later property transfers, particularly real estate ones.

Now in fact this does not really answer our question, although it does highlight important details to some extent, particularly when we consider Locke's view of "America." Why is it that the Indians did not "own" the land, or were not considered to be the owners by the British (and Spanish and French)? Needless to say, certain areas were used regularly by certain tribes, arguably enough that Locke should have granted them property rights, unless he wanted to argue that they could not due to being subhuman or something like that (am not aware of Locke ever making such arguments).

No, obviously what is involved is recognizing that behind property rights, certainly in land, there is assumed to be some sort of government or state with an organized legal code and system of courts to enforce it, even if it is one that has evolved "spontaneously" a la the common law of Britain, in contrast to the continental codes derived from Roman law, although the argument of Shleifer and his allies about the differences between these has been way overblown and often full of errors, the famous "Legal Origins" QJE paper by Glaeser and him being notorious for its myriad mistakes, even as it is one of the most heavily cited economics papers of all time.

So, private property comes into play when a government with a legal system recognizes that somebody has "mixed their labor" or otherwise assumed some recognized degree of control over some land with, very importantly, that person recognized as someone with legal rights to do so within the law code of the state involved, with that state itself ultimately having some degree of control or claim to control the land in question.

Econospeak

More On Owning Unowned Land

J. Barkley Rosser | Professor of Economics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia

Yves Smith — Questioning the Underlying Structures of Property and Power is “Off the Table”

Cuts to the chase. Economics is fundamentally about power. Discussion of power, like money, is off-limits in conventional economics.

Money and power are the essence of capitalism, and conventional economics is a myth rationalizing "primitive accumulation" of private property aka expropriation and exploitation.

Naked Capitalism

Questioning the Underlying Structures of Property and Power is “Off the Table”
Yves Smith