Property and the origin of wealth
At the outset, it is important to understand that ownership, as we know it today, has not always existed. In early human history, land, resources and property were common assets, without fixed boundaries or personal ownership. The concept of private property has developed over time and is not a given; rather, it is a social construct, strongly shaped by the culture and time in which it exists. In many societies, ownership has always been associated with responsibility towards society, and the idea that private property should be absolute or unquestioned is a relatively modern phenomenon, mainly sprung out of Western individualism.
Capital accumulation: result of labor or exploitation?
Research and scientific analysis show that the richest in society have often not accumulated their fortunes solely through their own work. Instead, their wealth has often been built up by appropriating the surplus value of other people's work. This can be done through entrepreneurship, where owners receive a return on their investment while employees receive a salary, often without being fully compensated for the value they bring to the company. Economic theories such as those of Karl Marx point out that the basic function of capitalism is based on precisely this form of surplus-value exploitation, where the workers create value in excess of their wages, and this difference accrues to the capitalist.
Furthermore, great fortunes can also be derived from structures that distribute wealth from the many to the few. For example, music artists, writers and other creative individuals can make billions by collecting a small fee from millions of consumers and accumulating it into a huge personal wealth. Although these achievements require talent and work, it is difficult to argue that such a concentration of wealth is entirely the result of the individual's work effort.
Ownership as a social construct
The history of property rights in the West is also deeply rooted in inequality. Colonialism is an example where Western powers systematically denied the rights of indigenous peoples to their own lands. Through legal constructions and military superiority, these lands, and thus the resources, were taken from their original owners. This practice has resulted in long-standing structural inequalities, where wealth that today is considered "inherited" or "earned" actually originates in theft and exploitation.
Even today, many fortunes bear traces of historical injustice. The wealthiest families have often accumulated their wealth over generations, where the starting point of this accumulation was a time of even greater inequality and exploitation. This transfer of wealth reinforces class distinctions and confers advantages based not on the individual's ability or work, but on the past assets and social positions of parents or ancestors.
Western individualism and the price of ownership
The Western view of ownership, strongly characterized by individualism and liberalism, is unusually extreme compared to other cultures. Its most extreme interpretation originates in Roman law. This gave the right to the slave owner to kill or injure his slaves however he wanted. Many other societies have had a more collective view of property, where resources are seen as common and ownership is associated with responsibility towards the common good. In these societies, social harmony and equality have often been emphasized more, and thus the economic system has not allowed the same extreme inequality that we see in the Western world.
The fact that the word "private" comes from the Latin "privare", which means "to deprive", is symbolic. Private property means that something that was previously available to everyone is now exclusive and deprived of society at large. It is a reminder that ownership is not only about rights, but also about responsibility towards society and reaping the wealth you appropriate back into the commons.
Conclusion
Property and wealth in today's society are complex phenomena, deeply rooted in historical injustices and social constructs. Many of the riches that are today considered "deserved" are based on structures that exploit labor and distribute resources in an unequal way. By acknowledging these realities, we can begin to question the common perception of ownership and wealth and create a more equitable distribution of resources that benefits society as a whole.
More reading
One could possibly add that the idea of absolute property without limitations was something the Romans invented. They could also possess people and kill them with impunity. So-called Roman law, which after a thousand years of oblivion was revived in the 1200th century in Italy, probably by merchant circles who needed protection around their wealth accumulation.
The Nordic countries were always a bit skeptical of Roman law, among other things we have our principle of common law which still applies. Which is really just old pre-Roman law that has always applied here: property rights are always matched by obligations and apply to usufruct rights rather than the right to do what you want with something.
Some believe that the EU is a collection of forces from capital owners and others privileged to make Roman law the sole ruling principle. That tank was aired, e.g. in the 1991 Norwegian EU resistance book Supermarked or felles framðat.
However, in that case they have difficulties in their own backyard. French farmers are fighting furiously for their principle AOC, Appellation d'Origine Controllée which for a while was threatened by the "free trade treaty" TTIP which only recognized copyright. AOC means that only those who use a strictly traditional production method and place of production may call their product e.g. champagne or Parma cheese. But it is free for anyone to do so, which therefore goes against the principle of ownership.
The farmers won, that time.
Well I know it comes from Roman law, but didn't manage to get it all. Thanks for your comment which is wise as your comments always are and thanks for the input. As for the origins of the EU, I agree. See covered..
In general, it is probably unwise to copy Roman principles, says Michael Hudson. They also, uniquely in antiquity, regarded a claim as any property with the same right to absolute protection as any private property. Which resulted, according to him, in the entire Roman economy drowning in debt.
See e.g. his essay Entrepreneurs: From the near eastern takeoff to the Roman collapse, inserted in Landes, Mokyr & Baumol (ed): The invention of enterprise, 2010. Other ancient societies wrote off debts rather than drive people out of their businesses (most were after all, farmers at that time).
Just. The same austerity policy that we are pursuing today. This one I fight here.
Again you provide an important overview. Capital also means ability.
Aristotle who lived during the fourth century BC. worried about a new phenomenon that was brewing: Privately owned money lent out at a cost called interest. To explain what he saw and why it concerned him, he used two different names for economics: One he called 'oikonomia', the other 'krematistics'.
If interest is translated from Greek, it is called tokos.
Its meaning is offspring. An organic meaning.
Money cannot produce an offspring without it being transformed into debt. Therefore interest in history consumes assets. A reduction.
Kremastic gives rise to the term creamer. Money accumulates in heaps and is not in circulation.
True economics originates in oikonomia which
leads "the house with laws of life or the house to farm."
It was intended to apply to the entire earth's economy and the sustenance of all mankind. A distribution for all for growth and development from generation to generation.
Wisely written! You are knowledgeable and wise.
Money is like fertilizer. They do no good if they are not spread.