From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun May 08 2005 - 20:19:51 BST
Hi Mark,
A quick response on this (it's been a long day).
You say:
> De Soto's underlying assumption is that private ownership of land
> (the lake) is the key to unlocking its potential as a capital asset.
> That is, before this capital potential can be released, someone must
> have clear title to the land. and this is why a formalized system of
> property record management is necessary. A lake needs a dam to
> release its energy, and assets need a formal property system to
> release their potential surplus value.
>
> Now, reading these few sentences, some obvious questions arise. On
> what grounds does he assume that private rather than common ownership
> is necessary for the release of economic potential?
So far as I can tell de Soto nowhere says that common ownership of land or
other assets is incompatible with capitalism. His point is that the title of
the land needs to be establised by law, so that the potential of it can be
fixed. I don't think there is any necessity for it to be in the hands of
evil robber barons, it could just as easily be held by a virtuous worker's
cooperative. Which means that all the political debates come later - it
seems to me that you can still be a socialist and accept his analysis. But
maybe I'm mistaken on that.
I'll have a look at the text to see if there is anywhere that he says this
explicitly. But it'll be tomorrow....
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 08 2005 - 20:23:53 BST