Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!mit-eddie!lkk From: lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: re: Re: Property Message-ID: <1406@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Mar-84 18:19:03 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1406 Posted: Wed Mar 7 18:19:03 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Mar-84 19:37:41 EST References: <407@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 23 Sam from Berkeley wonders about the recency of the notion of private property: Take the situation in England. Until the rise of Capitalism (about 200 years ago), the notion of property was indeed very different. Except perhaps for things like food, there was no such thing as a free market, property and most things were ot made to be bought and sold. In particular, land was not property. Nobles controlled the land through hereditery titles. THEY WERE NOT FREE TO BUY AND SELL IT AT WILL. In addition, they had certain responsiblitites to the serfs who lived on their land. These were based on tradition, not law. A serf couldn't sell his house, because the concept didn't make any sense. He would never move anywhere. People for the most part produced oly for themselves, their famililes, and for their lord. It was not until the late 1700's, when the Enclosure laws propted the nobles to kick the peasants off the land did the rise of industrial cities occur. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-ml