Now for something completely different: the link between prepositions and property rights
I am having another go at J.C. Holt's book on the Magna Carta...so far, I've only managed to read the first half twice. I am now once again at page 10, where I found this quote:
"The words 'no free man' were so altered that the Charter's formal terms became socially inclusive. In the earlier statutes of Edward III of 1331 and 1352 they became simply 'no man', but in 1354 in the statute which refers for the first time to 'due process of law', 'no free man' became 'no man of whatever estate or condition he may be.'"
Some sort of complaint about conflicting jurisdictions prompted Parliament to broaden their definition of the man -- it wasn't that they suddenly got all philosophical and the spirit of the future visited them. It's funny how noble deeds don't always spring from noble thoughts (and conversely, how noble thoughts so often lead to ignoble results).
But, what really interested me was the interplay between the specific and the abstract. It reminded me of something else I read...here's a quote from Adam Smith's chapter on the origin of words (pardon his 1750s English):
"It is this application of the name of an individual to a great multitude of objects, whose resemblance naturally recalls the idea of that individual, and of the name which expresses it, that seems originally to have given occasion to the formation of those classes and assortments, which, in the schools, are called genera and species, and of which the ingenius and eloquent M. Rousseau, of Geneva, finds himself so much at a loss to account for the origin."*
Likewise, my rights today as an unmarried female recall the rights a few wealthy men demanded of King John in the 1200s, and which they got because he was so bad with money. Freedom didn't start because a Greensleeves-singing musician or mediaeval human rights activist berated our ancestors into it -- it started with some rich guys haggling over their freedom as though it were a cow.
But, that's not my point, either. In both cases (words and individual rights), what started off as applying to a very few eventually applied to many -- and specific incidents (as opposed to theoretical musings) hastened this progress.
When our ancestors first wandered away from their cave and saw for the first time other caves, their sound for 'cave' could no longer mean 'our home' but rather, any hole in the wall (of a mountain).**
When some 14th century farmer got angry because his neighbor's goat kept wandering into his turnip patch, the resulting demarcation between his property and his neighbor's property also meant the definition of property rights in general.
I figure that somehow, the grammatical evolution from declensions (a word I keep forgetting) to prepositions is related to the path from servitude to freedom.
But, how this embryonic idea will help me, I have no idea.
*Note how Adam Smith casually presages Darwin while dabbling in linguistics. It's even more apparent when you read the whole chapter.
**I'm summarizing Adam Smith here.
References:
Holt, J.C. (1992). Magna Carta
Smith, Adam (1759). The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Labels: adam smith, magna carta
posted by Unknown @ 7:58 pm
5 comments
5 Comments:
John Locke said the notion of personal property is intimately linked to the notion of labor. In other words, (I think this was his example) apples on a tree are community property until you or I go pick them. Our labor provokes our claim for ownership.
Gradual expansion of franchises appears to be a function of our gradually expanding concept of polity; as we see more citizens entitled to participate, we can't deny them the rights, privileges, etc. already established.
as we see more citizens entitled to participate, we can't deny them the rights, privileges, etc. already established.
To change the perspective...when we see other citizens entitled to participate, we don't want to be denied the same rights.
Entitlement implies ownership -- I don't think you can feel entitled to something until after you've possessed it...whether it's freedom or a new car.
After you witness how your neighbors benefit from certain rights and privileges, you want those rights, too -- just as you'd suddenly want a new car if you liked the one they just bought. After you manage to get those rights and privileges, they are yours...to be passed down to your children along with the china-set and quilts.
I think freedom and individual rights should be viewed as commodities -- they are worth to you whatever you pay for them.
For example, if someone handed me some mysterious technological doo-dad, and if I'd never seen it before and had no idea how to use it, I'd shelve it -- even if whoever gave it to me paid a lot of money for it. I don't care at all what they paid for it -- it's what I'd be willing to pay for it. And until I see how it can benefit me, I won't pay a cent.
Ahem...I hope you didn't expect coherence here.
Maybe you could say that my individual rights are like John Locke's apples.
"Freedom and individual rights should be viewed as commodities--they are worth to you whatever you pay for them."
Well, but the freedoms I enjoy today (Bill of Rights essentially) were "bought" by someone else. They continue to need nurturing and protection though, which is why I can almost agree with your viewpoint that they are worth whatever you pay for them. Trouble is, apparently about 47% of our fellow citizenry has no problem with our government (which face it--is where our freedoms are rooted) being wiretapped without a court intervening...ye ole 4th Amendment. Just because they don't care--should my rights be abridged? I'm mad as hell about this news but alone, I can't 'purchase' back my 4th amendment rights.
Entitlement could also spring from the practice of exercise.
Well, if your great-grandfather bought a...what should he have bought? Let's say a nice gold watch. That watch would now be yours (if only because your grandfather's brother ran off to New Zealand with the maid). Although you would of course value it for whatever they said it was worth on Antique Roadshow, you would value it also for sentimental reasons.
Sentimental values and cash values don't always match up, but on average, something's cash value is the easiest and best way for others to understand what something means to you.
But I think sentimental value can last only so long (especially through successive generations), before it loses out to its cash value. And cash value is based on how something can make your life easier/better. If my inherited watch is analog and I can only read digital, then eventually, I'd consider throwing it out. I'd hold off only as a sign of respect to my parents.
So, if you view the wire-tapping issue as an analog watch, then it makes sense that people are so cavalier about losing that particular right. It's like a vestigial limb they've never used.
If more people were familiar with history, they would realize that the right to privacy has indeed a cash value (wages lost while you're in jail, etc.), not just a sentimental value. But, it would be naieve to think that most people will ever be familiar with history -- I don't think any school system or social system could make it any different. Most of us will always live by experience.
Once we lose some of these rights, as seems to be happening, and it starts to impact us, as it surely will, then we'll be reminded of how much they're worth.
Post a Comment
<< Home