This is why estate taxes should be 100%

[alfred russel]

Viking, sorry but is your point actually that Romans did not have legally enforceable property rights because when the Roman Empire fell, these laws were no longer enforceable? I hope it isn't that, because if it is, then your point is extremely retarded.

The Romans did. However, after the Romans a period of time happened when all land property was revoked and became feudal grants which were not inherited, but rather in the gift of the local strong man. It is the land holders struggle to get rights of inheritance in the middle ages I am referring to. I am referring to the development from a frank, goth or saxon declaring that all he beholds now belongs to him before he parcels the land out to his vassals through the vassals getting some title to the land recognized and the ability to hand the land over to their sons through to actual modern property rights.

The romans certainly had laws, but those laws ended and where they continued they were resurrected by interested parties.

I think there was a lot more continuity with Roman law than you are allowing. Also, you are focusing on land rights in an idealized feudal system--those don't encompass all property rights. For example, early surviving germanic laws involves property rights (though I don't know if they extend to land in any places).

[Viking]

Again rights are not laws. What protected roman property were not rights but customs and laws. Once those customs were removed the laws were ignored.

I know there was a continuation of roman law where the church survived. But again  Rights /= Laws. In the early middle ages there are no more rights (except maybe ecclesiastical ones which have over time been abolished as regular people got rights) than you can claim and hold under arms with your relatives, friends and neighbors.

Property rights and permission to have property are not the same thing.

[alfred russel]

Again rights are not laws. What protected roman property were not rights but customs and laws.

I'm not following the distinction. "Rights" are a somewhat philosphical concept; how society protects property is through customs and laws. The Romans had those customs and laws, and so did the Germanic tribes that replaced them.

If you want to discuss the philosophical context, Cicero laid a lot of the groundwork for the enlightenment thinkers such as Locke who developed our modern concepts. Christianity dominated the thinking of the late roman empire and its successors, and Christianity has a concept of property rights within it.

[Viking]

Again rights are not laws. What protected roman property were not rights but customs and laws.

I'm not following the distinction. "Rights" are a somewhat philosphical concept; how society protects property is through customs and laws. The Romans had those customs and laws, and so did the Germanic tribes that replaced them.

If you want to discuss the philosophical context, Cicero laid a lot of the groundwork for the enlightenment thinkers such as Locke who developed our modern concepts. Christianity dominated the thinking of the late roman empire and its successors, and Christianity has a concept of property rights within it.

Well, the people of the time considered the right to pass on property to their heirs significant and later people (including locke and his kin) identify the struggle of feudal vassals for property rights to be the foundation for their own conception of rights (which I might add they invent as a concept).

We can go into another religion hijack, but I think I'm on good ground when I say that christianity doesn't have anything to say about property rights, unless that property is a slave, and for the most part advocates giving any property you might have away.

The stoics, epicureans, cynics, skeptics, neo-platonists and all the other Roman Schools of Philosophy had little to say about rights. I'll agree that the judeo-christian idea of each person having value in and of himself because he was created in the image of god is a vital building block for the very concept of rights, but it is a building block that lies around the back of the quarry unused for millennia.

[alfred russel]

I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).

[The Minsky Moment]

The Romans did. However, after the Romans a period of time happened when all land property was revoked and became feudal grants which were not inherited, but rather in the gift of the local strong man. It is the land holders struggle to get rights of inheritance in the middle ages I am referring to. I am referring to the development from a frank, goth or saxon declaring that all he beholds now belongs to him before he parcels the land out to his vassals through the vassals getting some title to the land recognized and the ability to hand the land over to their sons through to actual modern property rights.

The romans certainly had laws, but those laws ended and where they continued they were resurrected by interested parties.

Yes, and the conflict between the lord and his vassals for rights of inheritance has been going on for centuries by the 13th century. You used the word "resurrect". I'm saying roman property law was abandoned for feudal contract with the barbarian conquest.

Feudal Contract means no property rights. You don't own your land, you hold it for your lord. The roman law thing is a red herring here. For the castle building knights of the feudal contract your land was the land you could hold by force of arms and the only title deed was your lords appreciation of the fact that starving you out of your castle was too much of a hassle. The conquerors took all the land, they then used the land as a reward for past and future service. This is not a continuation of centuries of roman legal tradition this is a replacement by germanic tribal custom

This is all a bit of mess - it ignores almost a century of historiography on the late classical or medieval period, maybe more.

First of all, the fall of the Roman empire did not lead seemlessly into "castle building knights."  Without plunging to deeply into the still-raging controversies on this issue, that "feudal transformation" is a post-Carolingian phenomemon (although perhaps with some roots in the earlier period).  There is no connection with the period of the rise of Barabarian kingdoms which were not "feudal" in that sense or any other recognized sense of the word.

By and large, the rise of the Barbarian polities in the core areas of the Western Empire did not displace Roman law, which continued to apply to existing population as before.  The Barbarians (originally a minority) were governed by their own customary or tribal law - it was a dual system. Indeed, it didn't take long for Barbarian customary law to be "romanized" - the Salian law (e.g.) was coidified and published and Latin.  Although in some cases, Roman landowners had to cede property in return for political protection, they otherwise retained their real property, which was still governed by Roman law.  And Walter Goffart and others have even cast doubt on whether actual transfers of property occurred in some cases, as opposed to transfers of fiscal rights associated with the land.  None of this was accidental: the Barbarians wanted to reap the benefits of Roman civilization, not overturn it; the Roman elites were willing to replace an erratic but sometimes fiscally rapacious imperial machinery with new, more reliable military protectors.

The "castle building knights" OTOH arise centuries later out of the detrius of the failed Carolingian experiment - i.e. they come to the fore as a result of a temporary vacuum in political authority.  Their hold over land certainly has little to do with "Germanic Tribal custom" - even if such a thing existed; nor is it properly termed a "contract" ( the notion of a feudal contract is almost a contradiction in terms).  At its most crudely reductionist, they held land by right of possession and superior might, and to the extent no political authority chose to challenge that possession.  The proponents of the feudal revolution or tranformation theory hold that a distinctive aspect of the new banal lordships was precisely that the de facto ability of any overlord to remove them from the land was diminished greatly over the Carolingian period.  The theoretical ability of an overlord to deny transfer of a fief or benefice was often just that and by the time kings and higher lords can make good on those theoretical rights, there is a more complex political-legal structure in place that allows the "vassals" to demand formalization of rights as per, for example, Magna Carta.

The "feudal" period in the 10th and 11th century looks lawless and in a sense it probably was, but it doesn't mean formal law vanished; it was just in temporary occultation due to declines in literacy and the non-existence of any bureaucracy.  With the rise of the organuzaed Church, greater literacy and the beginnings of royal bureaucracy in the 12 century, the Roman law returns to the surface, customary (or common) law becomes re-formalized, and conflicts over personal ties and property rights increasingly start transforming into conflicts over legal jurisdiction.

[Viking]

I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).

Coveting is beside the point; wanting somebody dead is not depriving them of the right to life. As I did point out earlier property and property rights are not the same thing.

[HVC]

I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).

Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.

[Viking]

This is all a bit of mess - it ignores almost a century of historiography on the late classical or medieval period, maybe more.

First of all, the fall of the Roman empire did not lead seemlessly into "castle building knights."  Without plunging to deeply into the still-raging controversies on this issue, that "feudal transformation" is a post-Carolingian phenomemon (although perhaps with some roots in the earlier period).  There is no connection with the period of the rise of Barabarian kingdoms which were not "feudal" in that sense or any other recognized sense of the word.

whoopdeedoo... congrats on not reading. This is all a bit of a mess - it ignores most of what I said and said I said.

By and large, the rise of the Barbarian polities in the core areas of the Western Empire did not displace Roman law, which continued to apply to existing population as before.  The Barbarians (originally a minority) were governed by their own customary or tribal law - it was a dual system. Indeed, it didn't take long for Barbarian customary law to be "romanized" - the Salian law (e.g.) was coidified and published and Latin.  Although in some cases, Roman landowners had to cede property in return for political protection, they otherwise retained their real property, which was still governed by Roman law.  And Walter Goffart and others have even cast doubt on whether actual transfers of property occurred in some cases, as opposed to transfers of fiscal rights associated with the land.  None of this was accidental: the Barbarians wanted to reap the benefits of Roman civilization, not overturn it; the Roman elites were willing to replace an erratic but sometimes fiscally rapacious imperial machinery with new, more reliable military protectors.

The "castle building knights" OTOH arise centuries later out of the detrius of the failed Carolingian experiment - i.e. they come to the fore as a result of a temporary vacuum in political authority.  Their hold over land certainly has little to do with "Germanic Tribal custom" - even if such a thing existed; nor is it properly termed a "contract" ( the notion of a feudal contract is almost a contradiction in terms).  At its most crudely reductionist, they held land by right of possession and superior might, and to the extent no political authority chose to challenge that possession.  The proponents of the feudal revolution or tranformation theory hold that a distinctive aspect of the new banal lordships was precisely that the de facto ability of any overlord to remove them from the land was diminished greatly over the Carolingian period.  The theoretical ability of an overlord to deny transfer of a fief or benefice was often just that and by the time kings and higher lords can make good on those theoretical rights, there is a more complex political-legal structure in place that allows the "vassals" to demand formalization of rights as per, for example, Magna Carta.

The "feudal" period in the 10th and 11th century looks lawless and in a sense it probably was, but it doesn't mean formal law vanished; it was just in temporary occultation due to declines in literacy and the non-existence of any bureaucracy.  With the rise of the organuzaed Church, greater literacy and the beginnings of royal bureaucracy in the 12 century, the Roman law returns to the surface, customary (or common) law becomes re-formalized, and conflicts over personal ties and property rights increasingly start transforming into conflicts over legal jurisdiction.

The bolded bit is the process I am talking about. The practical ability of kings degenerated into theoretical rights of royalty and with the Magna Carta and other similar documents of that kind the rights of the nobles vis a vis the king were established. These rights were fought for to protect the nobles from royal arbitraryness.

Rulers care about money, Churches care about conscience and Movements care about ideas. The right to a trial by peers is to protect the property and life of nobles from royal arbitraryness. All the other politcal rights we claim are there to make sure that the government has rules it must play by when it want to take. All our rights ultimately work to protect property, soul and ideas. Given that people routinely die for these rights they are fighting for these rights not just for themselves.

Now, off you go write a wall of words on some red herring.

[Viking]

I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).

Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.

They were not inherent rights, but a grant of god contingent on following the law. That's pretty much the entire point of Babylonian Exile Judaism imho.

[HVC]

I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).

Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.

They were not inherent rights, but a grant of god contingent on following the law. That's pretty much the entire point of Babylonian Exile Judaism imho.

but every right and benefit in the bible is contingent granted by god for following his laws. You can't single out inheritance. Old testament god is a badass smiting god. so much cooler then hippy jesus god.

[Viking]

I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).

Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.

They were not inherent rights, but a grant of god contingent on following the law. That's pretty much the entire point of Babylonian Exile Judaism imho.

but every right and benefit in the bible is contingent granted by god for following his laws. You can't single out inheritance. Old testament god is a badass smiting god. so much cooler then hippy jesus god.

precisely, there are not rights in the bible, there are only gifts from Yahwe.

[HVC]

I don't agree about many things, but for the most straightforward: see the ten commandments, 2 of which directly address property rights (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff).

Israel gets its name from inheritance rights. The sons of Israel inherited his lands. IIRC patrilineal inheritance is set out in the bible.

They were not inherent rights, but a grant of god contingent on following the law. That's pretty much the entire point of Babylonian Exile Judaism imho.

but every right and benefit in the bible is contingent granted by god for following his laws. You can't single out inheritance. Old testament god is a badass smiting god. so much cooler then hippy jesus god.

precisely, there are not rights in the bible, there are only gifts from Yahwe.

from a literal perspective sure, but from a practical perspetive your son(s) gets your shit when you die. I would classify that as an inhertican right/law/practice/fancier term.

[Viking]

from a literal perspective sure, but from a practical perspetive your son(s) gets your shit when you die. I would classify that as an inhertican right/law/practice/fancier term.

yes, unless somebody bigger and stronger than you takes it.

[HVC]

That still happens in this day and age. might makes right. If the government decides a highway is going through my house i'm losing my house; laws, rights, and "fairness" be damned.