Michael, FYI (on the evolution of private property):
The Code of Hammurabi (1792-1750 B.C.) recognizes private property, and has numerous provisions designed to protect it. Of course, Babylonia was a "religious" society (if non-Christian). But so too were societies where communal property prevailed.
This suggests that the type of religion professed by a given society is only one factor in determining the form of property that prevails in it, and that other factors (economic, social, and political) are even more important.
If you are really interested in pursuing this question, I would like to recommend the following scholarly report ("Cross-Cultural Correlates of the Ownership of Private Property"):
webzines-vancouver.bc.ca
As the author points out,the institution of private property, as well as the debate about it, goes way back (to pre-Christian times):
The ownership of property is one of the most enduring and widespread topics of social science discourse. From Greek antiquity to the present day, across the disciplines of political science, anthropology, law, geography, history, sociology, and psychology, debate has focused on the foundation causes of private property, on its natural history and evolution, on its social functions and consequences, and on its justice...
In this century, according to the author, some social scientists began to insist on the need to back up sweeping generalizations with empirical data --specifically, statistical data. He then proceeds to examine statistical data collected by various studies of so-called primitive societies. This is from the abstract:
This is the fifth study of archived holocultural data in a program of cross-cultural research to identify the social institutions and behavioral norms that coincide with private property rights. Using Simmons' 1945 data base of 71 societies, a composite index of private rights for the aged, in conjunction with two other indices of private ownership, correlated (p<.0019) with 46 of Simmons' total 217 variables. Replications across all five studies show private ownership to be a positive correlate with agricultural subsistence, social stratification, social control based on law and religion, large populations and permanent settlements, patriarchal family norms, support of the aged, especially aged men, and economic practices of trade, money, debt, metallurgy, and war. Such results can be used to critique theories of property, for example, those of John Locke and George Mead.
The study is quite interesting --if you can stomach that social science jargon (ugh!) -- and also has numerous bibliographical references to major works on the subject (e.g., the above-mentioned Locke and Mead).
Incidentally, I can't help noticing that you have gone way, way out on a limb with your "zookeepers" argument. In my opinion, trying to blend Libertarianism with Christianity is like trying to touch your nose with the end of your tongue.
As I pointed out earlier, Ayn Rand, the Queen of Objectivist Libertarianism, was an atheist, which of course did not prevent her from being a fervent advocate of private property (and of the right/duty to get rich}. At the same time, Christian organizations have been among the most fervent advocates for the poor and disadvantaged (e.g., Dorothy Day & the Catholic Workers).
For that matter, Jesus himself tended to side with the poor against the rich. Wasn't he the one who made the remark that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven?
(BTW, this is what led Nietzsche to attack Christianity as a "slave religion," the very embodiment, he maintained, of the resentment of the poor and weak directed against the strong and deservedly powerful.)
At the same time, Michael, I'd like to thank you for bringing up this question in the first place. It inspired me to do a bit of research, and I have learned some new things from it.
Joan
|
