AuthorTopic: Power, the State and the Institution of Property  (Read 1351 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39405
    • View Profile
Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« on: February 05, 2017, 09:01:31 PM »
An abstract from a paper on Property I haven't been able to get hold of as of yet.

H/T to Elmar on Economic Undertow for the abstract.  More or less in line with most of my theories.

RE

Power, the State and the Institution of Property
Paul C. Martin
(Preliminary version of 26 October 2003)

Private property as de jure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force. The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the possession of it guarantees property of it (makes it proprietary). Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute). The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons (copper, tin). Thus non-circulating money begins. Taxes as census and money are the same.

As soon as defense and protection of the titular power (is) executed by armed force in war and peace (the hire of) mercenaries the one-way money turns into circulating “genuine money” in modern sense and its material changes from weapon-fitting to precious metal and actually into any material which can be monopolized by the state.

Interest also at first is the tax (census) itself. The state, that must exist before property and property-based contracts which only can be executed with use of armed force, can’t be financed out of property or income which can only appear after (such things) exist. Therefore the state faces the problem of pre-financing itself (before it can) draw on later tributes or taxes. This “interest”, which always starts with power and never with “private” titles is nothing but a discount, thereby rather a discount of the state-owned property (monopoly of armed force) or property rights (monopoly of taxation) than any private “property premium” or even an mysterious item that “enlarges” something. Interest, then is the partition of forced- or expected income (as measured in the state-owned monopoly to declare “legal tender”) or property (goods) by the party which will get this income or property (goods) from other parties. The more property is ceded by the state to the private sector or can be created as income after cession to the private sector in the private sector the longer the process of “creation of wealth” can endure, because the more power-sustaining taxes can be imposed.

Nonetheless the breakdown of all property-systems is inevitable. This we actually can study watching the exploding indebtedness of “democratic” powers. The problem of state power vs. private economic activities is by definition unsolvable. Wealth creation inevitably sooner or later leads to wealth destruction. This explains “rise and fall” of any power- or state-based systems throughout history.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2017, 10:52:06 PM »
You need to rewrite that in your own inimitable style before it makes much sense.  And first explain why the subject matter is important.
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39405
    • View Profile
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2017, 11:52:38 PM »
You need to rewrite that in your own inimitable style before it makes much sense.  And first explain why the subject matter is important.

Basically it goes like this.

Money is used in a transaction which requires both a Buyer and a Seller.  In order for someone to sell something, first they must have "legal" title to whatever it is they are selling.

Now, until you have Property Ownership in place, you can't begin this process.  The way the State takes ownership is through Military Force.  Now the Pharoah, Emperor, King or Queen owns everything.  Thus in the beginning the Queen of England owned everything on the NA continent.

In order to distribute the resources of this everything, money is created.  This money then pays the soldiers, and then loans are made to well connnected individuals who buy some of the land from the Queen, with the proviso usually that they will pay taxes to her in return.  Sometimes in the old days a few large land grants were made to favoured members of the Royal Court and they were made Goobernators.  Taxes still had to be paid to the Royal Treasury though.

Because you work up a complex network of trade in this process, a class of people insert themselves into the process, we call them "Banksters".  While the owner of the property makes its money on Taxes, the Bankster makes his on the Interest he charges on the money he creates.  The money comes in the form of Letters of Credit which say on such and such a date you will deliver such and such amount of timber, or grain or whatever.  These notes are dated and can only be used for very specific trades.  The typical money we use is a similar type of credit instrument, but it's not dated.  Think of it as a Note of Zero Duration.  It's good for all the transactions being performed in the society, and the way items are valued is on the perceived value of whatever it is at a given time.  This is what Commodities Markets are supposed to do in "Price Discovery", although in practice this is highly manipulated by the same people issuing out the credit.

This explains why H-Gs didn't use money.  They didn't have a concept of Property Ownership.  Only with Ownership Enforced by the Military does money work at all.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2017, 01:59:21 PM »
Right, thank you.

Quote
This explains why H-Gs didn't use money.  They didn't have a concept of Property Ownership.

I suspect that that bit needs refining.  There may well be a concept of Property Ownership present amongst H-Gs - "This is my spear, because I made it.  That is your club, because you made it.  If we both agree, we can swap weapons, and then the club will be mine, and the spear yours."  Essentially bartering property, no money needed.

So what are we trying explain?  - I suspect, the existence of money, allowing for more complicated trading transactions.  If not, what?

Everybody likes those nuggets of soft yellow metal, which are hard to find amongst the gravel in the river bed.  So when you go to market, always have a few nuggets in your pocket to barter with.
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39405
    • View Profile
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2017, 02:22:49 PM »
Right, thank you.

Quote
This explains why H-Gs didn't use money.  They didn't have a concept of Property Ownership.

I suspect that that bit needs refining.  There may well be a concept of Property Ownership present amongst H-Gs - "This is my spear, because I made it.  That is your club, because you made it.  If we both agree, we can swap weapons, and then the club will be mine, and the spear yours."  Essentially bartering property, no money needed.

So what are we trying explain?  - I suspect, the existence of money, allowing for more complicated trading transactions.  If not, what?

Everybody likes those nuggets of soft yellow metal, which are hard to find amongst the gravel in the river bed.  So when you go to market, always have a few nuggets in your pocket to barter with.

When you barter items, you're not using money.  Even gold is not money when used as a barter item.  Gold only becomes money when it is coined up as a token by the State.

In this case, "Property" refers to land and resources, not spears and clubs.  Who owns the tree the spear and club were made from?

Basically the point here is to show how money originated, and how you need the force of the State to make it work.  Without the State, you are reduced to barter, and the state doesn't exist without the military enforcement and resource theft it engages in.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2017, 05:06:24 PM »
Quote
In this case, "Property" refers to land and resources, not spears and clubs. 

I think Property is a bit of a red herring here.  H-Gs definitely have a sense of possession of land, resources, spears and clubs, at the personal level, family level, and tribal level.  That implies they will fight other tribes to protect their property, effectively like a State.  Yet they have no money.

I'm pretty sure we agree on all this, I'm just not sure if you're trying to say something new, and if so, is it right.
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39405
    • View Profile
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2017, 05:18:53 PM »
Quote
In this case, "Property" refers to land and resources, not spears and clubs. 

I think Property is a bit of a red herring here.  H-Gs definitely have a sense of possession of land, resources, spears and clubs, at the personal level, family level, and tribal level.  That implies they will fight other tribes to protect their property, effectively like a State.  Yet they have no money.

I'm pretty sure we agree on all this, I'm just not sure if you're trying to say something new, and if so, is it right.

Well, it's clearly not all that new, since the paper this academic wrote came out in 2003, although I never read it and still can't get hold of anything but the abstract.

Lots of books and theories have been produced on the nature of wealth, money and credit of course.  Everybody has an opinion on this.  LOL.

The difference between H-G sense of ownership of land and resources and the Ag sense is that for H-Gs, all the natural resources of a given location were held communally.  They certainly protected their hunting grounds from other tribes, so in this sense they "owned" their patch of land.

In Ag societies, the land and resources got divied up between people based on a monetary system that placed a value on that land and resources, and then individuals could hold private title to that land.  So a Duke for instance could have all the Hunting rights on his patch of land, and none of the Serfs could hunt there.  And so on, up to Exxon-Mobil having all the rights to the Oil under the ground in a given neighborhood, by paying for leases to extract that oil.  That is where the money comes in.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline John of Wallan

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2017, 03:06:08 AM »
The Australian aboriginal concept of land ownership is simple: They belong to the land not the other way around.
They are as much a part of the landscape as the trees and wildlife, and see no special place for themselves above the other inhabitants that make up the landscape.They are H-G and each tribe/ cultural group looks after their ancestral lands which they were part of, and which they are tasked with looking after for eternity.
They would never buy or sell the land, just as you would not buy or sell a family member.
Only white man needed to own everything and then fence it and then exploit it before abandoning it and going onto the next piece of land.

JOW

Offline John of Wallan

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2017, 03:08:53 AM »
https://mishtalk.com/2017/02/08/time-to-panic-in-australia/

Speaking of property... As I have said before Australia financially is the USA with 10 year delay. Makes us about 2007 now right now.


JOW

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39405
    • View Profile
Re: Power, the State and the Institution of Property
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2017, 04:16:21 AM »
The Australian aboriginal concept of land ownership is simple: They belong to the land not the other way around.

Yes, and the aboriginals don't use money either.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1311 Views
Last post June 27, 2013, 04:10:46 AM
by g
61 Replies
6532 Views
Last post November 15, 2016, 12:21:15 PM
by Petty Tyrant
0 Replies
2382 Views
Last post September 15, 2019, 05:35:45 PM
by azozeo