Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (8526)	3/14/2001 7:47:44 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The feudal societies that you talked about basically allocated control of the land and other resources to the privileged few by the force of government. They never really had established property rights except for the privileged few so it would be hard to determine who the "original owner" was. Feudal and colonial societies tend to be agrarian, and the principal store of wealth is traditionally land. In feudal societies an individual with power, usually in the form of a group of armed men, simply declares himself to be the "owner" of land, usually land that is already being tilled. The tillers continue to till, they just fork over a large share of the produce to the "owner". I'm not sure what you mean by "established property rights". Certainly in the minds of the tillers there would be no doubt that the appropriation of the "legal rights" to their land and the forced turnover of their produce would be theft. Possibly they would not have a piece of paper issued by a government, attesting to their "ownership". It is very difficult to view colonialism as anything but theft, and in many postcolonial societies virtually all "private property" was originally expropriated from the indigenous inhabitants and granted to colonists. Even if the land was later acquired by an indigenous elite, the original theft would still make the land in question stolen property. If I steal your car and sell it to someone else, the fact that the third party paid for the car does not mean the car isn't stolen. The first thing that needs to be established is a rule of law with everyone equal under the law (rather then a rule of whatever the feudal lords want, or a law that treats these lords better then everyone else). Certainly the rule of law is a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of a productive economic system. The problem is how to establish the rule of law in countries traditionally governed by the whims of a few autocrats. The only way for this to happen is for the non-autocrats to take back control of the central government and use its power against the oligarchs. This can happen peacefully, but generally doesn't: most feudal systems have to be overturned by revolution. When feudal systems dig in and resist all forms of change, revolutionary ideologies like Communism begin to look appealing. Revolution is a natural response to rulers that refuse evolution. I wouldn't say that Communism is preferable to feudalism, but in extreme cases where feudal lords refuse to relinquish power, it may be seen by those who suffer the weight of the feudal regime as a necessary transitory step.