However, property rights allow individuals to store and divide labor, which, in turn, enables individuals to determine where it is to be applied.
Good point and good job. I'm pleased to have you post here.
Property rights, which are simply a construct created by the market, has seemed to increase the rate at which pure resources are turned into valued output (at least in this era).
Brilliant point. You made my day.
Grace, you should think about what has been stated here, and fold it into the related issues coming from the English industrial revolution. What begets what?
I do agree with the assertion that if another form of market organization is developed (where property rights are abolished, for instance) proves to be more efficient, the market will adopt it.
The physics of it. Another brilliant point. This is what society engineers can't avoid and can't anticipate. Now that does factor into Von Hayekian concepts and takes Adam Smith beyond what was available to Smith. It is a scary concept in ways, but it need not be so. There are many workable models of capitalism that have been the going standards in various eras of world history. Indeed, even Saddam's Iraq had its own decrepit form where there was no law, no rule of law, and certainly, no property rights. The market there organized itself along lines of force, rather than along lines of law, and had its own kind of survival efficiency. To some extent this was also seen in Nazi Germany where the actual default political structure was national socialism, dictatorship, and meanwhile capitalism moved discretely along lines of force. There's quite a lot of thinking behind this that never gets any formalized press, but there's plenty of precedents from Ghengis Khan to Akbar, from Berbers to Vikings.
The question is, just what is meant by "moving long lines of force"? |
