If we consider rational a system created by human action in an indirect manner, i.e. with no single actor actively seeking to bring it about, than I agree with what you write.
Now, we could get into a complex and ultimately pointless discussion of when does the food I was given to eat become my own. All I am trying to say is that the concept of full private property, i.e. of each man being sovereign with his own property, and being seen as having the full right to dispose of such property as he best sees fit without general resentment (otherwise a revolution is around the corner), is very new and in no instance has it existed fully in any society, past or present.
We learnt that this method is the best solution in efficiency terms, but we were not born with that knowledge or even tradition. All social interactions man seems to have built-in, with family and friends, speak of socialism, or at least heavy restrictions on what can one do with his property and still retain social acceptance. In this sense capitalism is ‘unnatural’ (or should we rather say, counter -instinctual).
I just don’t see that, sorry. People simply do not expect to be treated the same by strangers as they are by friends. When you’re in a bar, it’s most likely quite common for a friend to buy you a drink, or vice versa, but unless you’re a (pretty) girl, or it’s some special occasion, it’s fairly unlikely that any stranger in the bar will. Your friends will go to the movies with you; random people on the street will not. I could go on and on, but I think my point is made. NO ONE expects strangers to act the same as friends. It’s actually part of what it is to be a friend - you act differently than a stranger.
In no sense does “covet” imply “exchange”. To covet is to envy or desire wrongly. On the other hand, many scholars now believe “covet” is a mistranslation, and that it properly should be “take”.
In any event, the concept of private property was clearly part of the religion of the wandering, tribal, Israelites, which is what you asked for an example:
Your neighbor owns goods. They are his, not yours and not all of ours. You are not allowed to envy them or steal them. That there were limits on how said property could be used is notable, but does not contradict the fact that the concept for private property was there. It merely illustrates that property rights were not entirely respected by “God’s” servants.
Replace “God” with “government” and the statement is true today, but would you argue that there is no concept of private property today?
Hm, I really think that’s an egregious stretch of the concept of ‘covet’ to fit what we know now to be moral, but perhaps we are indeed dealing with a mistranslation, and I do not wish to go into a religiously-laden discussion. Perhaps tribes did have full private property, though I find this unbelievable. Anyways, those were my two cents on the issue of capitalism being natural to man.
I certainly don’t want to get into a religious debate. My point was that the operative phrase in that “commandment” is “belongs to your neighbor” and not the word covet. That is, for our discussion, it dosn’t matter what the rule is saying the members of the tribe were or weren’t allowed to do with others’ property, simply that the rule illustrates the concept of stuff belonging to people.
Not enough, I’m afraid. Can they trade it away freely? Is there social pressure on its allowed uses? Private property is much more than just knowing that X belongs to Y, even where such a concept exists at least for tools.
I have no idea what you’re talking about when you mention trade. Trade was certainly not prohibitted by religious tenets or custom in Israeli tribes. In fact, it happened. But again, you asked for an example of tribal people having the concept of private property. These tribal people knew about private property, at least in concept. People had possesions that were theirs and theirs alone, and it was generally believed that it was wrong to steal others’ possessions. This is private property.
What others in the tribe say one ought to do with one’s property, what you call “social pressure” is irrelevant, as long as the individual could ignore said pressure and choose to do what he wanted with his property, which of course was the case, or there would not have been any golden cows and such.
I remember the phrase as “thou shall not covet thy nieghbors wife.” And intuitivley, this suggests that you own people. In tribal societies, fathers “gave” away thier daughters.
I understnd i am equating people with property, but the point is to demonstrate that the concept of possesion, and doing what you see fit with it is not forgien, but instinctual to humans.
Well, no point in bringing quotations form anthropological work here. I just find it absolutely incredible that the full concept of private property, not just a partial realization (if the Israeli tribes had not had a partial realization of private property they would not have been as extremely successful evolution-wise as they proved to be) has been achieved anywhere on earth. My thoughts anyway.