But it wasn't until man developed money, that he could acquire more land than was necessary to satisfy his needs, for without money and the preservation of that which he grows, man would have no use for land beyond what he needs to sustain himself.
Posessions are very different than property, and the labour value definition of property, used by Locke et al., was used to dispossess indigenous peoples of their land.
possession ≠ ownership
But it is 9/10ths of the law. 😉
If you are interested, this an excellent chapter on property rights and aboriginal rights. I could also scan a copy if you are interested:
Uh, no. Money is not needed to acquire too much. Strength or subterfuge is enough to do that without money.
I meant that once money was invented, man could store the excess production from their land in a currency. Before the advent of money, a farmer could only make what they could trade, before it spoiled.
Ah. That is a much clearer point and I wouldn't argue with that.
Before money, there wasn’t any incentive to acquire as much land as one could.
I can't really agree with that, though. I think that's at least one or three steps too far without any real corroboration that I know of or can think of
I’d like to hear why you think that’s wrong?
What incentive would there to be own a large tract of land if you can’t store the wealth that it produces?
