| In this chapter, Rothbard largely talks about land issues in under-developed countries. He also describes how, when slavery was ended, the slaves should have received compensation – specifically, they should have gotten ownership of the lands they had worked. | この章ではロスバードが開発途上国の不動産問題について話す。また、奴隷廃止の際に元奴隷は損賠（具体的に、働かせた地）を受けるべきだった。 |
| Rothbard’s statements follow from his theory of land ownership (discussed before) and his theory of punishment (discussed ahead). However, I have modest detractions from both. | ロスバードの声明は以上の不動産所有の理論と以下の刑罰の理論から当然になるが、拙者はその理論と少々違う原理を主張する。 |
| In discussing under-developed countries, he specifically mentions a “latifundio” system in Latin America. He condemns it, but hardly describes it for us: “enormous expanses of land under a single landlord.” We can infer from a later statement (that some latifunists supported the violent dispossession of natives) that there was land engrossment, dispossession of rightful owners, and likely some enslavement and/or serfdom. | 途上国についてロスバードがラテンアメリカに関してラティフンディウム制度を話す。非難するが、読者のために「大土地経営」としか定義しない。後の発言（あるラティフンディウムの所有者が原住民から奪取を支援した）から不動産禁止と所有権の奪取と奴隷制か農奴制があったと推量できる。 |
| I wonder if, somewhere amongst the colonial grants in Latin America, there might be some that actually panned out like Pennsylvania: granted by the king, but nevertheless eschewing aggressive dispossession of the natives, and employing consensual labor. Then it might strictly qualify as a latifundium, but involve no crimes, so should be held as rightful ownership. | ラティフンディウム制度の中のどこかに、ペンシルベニア植民地みたいに原住民に奪取を疎んじて承諾した労働を使った件もあったか、と拙者が疑う。そんな件があれば、ラティフンディウムに達するが犯罪がなくて権利な所有権と主張するべきだ。 |
| Furthermore, I can only describe the assertion that managing an illegitimate latifundium is a continuing aggression as accurate in a sense that Rothbard did not intend (I’ll later consider interest owed for crimes). Since ownership derives from the rights to the fruits of one’s labor, the extent of a crime is: How much rightful benefit is the criminal depriving the victim of? If the latifundist is not currently enforcing land engrossment, dispossessing rightful owners, or employing slave labor, he may still owe reparations, but his “continuing aggression” is negligible, because the rightful owner’s labor from centuries ago would, by itself, bear only negligible fruits today. | また、不適正なラティフンディウムを経営すること自体がなおも犯罪行動である主張がロスバードの意図と違う意味だけで正解と認める。所有権は労働の成果への権利から由来するから、犯罪の程度は権利な成果を取り上げた程だ。不動産禁止、権利奪取、奴隷制とか犯罪をしていないのなら、賠償を払うべき事があろうとも大昔の労働だけの今の成果が極小だから今の犯罪も極小だ。 |
Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 11: Land Monopoly, Past and Present
Bookmark the permalink.