We must, however, bear in mind that the writers on the economic history of Rome still disagree very much, not only as to the explanation of the facts, but as to the facts themselves. See Max Weber’s article on “Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum”, in Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 3rd edition, Vol. I. [↑]
[254] The reader will remember that there are tribes among which land is abundant, but nobody can live upon land and human labour only: the possession of capital is necessary, and those destitute of capital have to apply to the owners for employment. The best instance is furnished by the pastoral tribes.
We have purposely avoided speaking of countries in which all land has been appropriated [[384]]and capital also plays a great part, as it is the case in the manufacturing countries of modern Europe. Here the structure of society is very complicated and difficult to disentangle. We think, however, that here also the most important fact is the appropriation of the soil. [↑]
[255] “The earth, as we have already seen, is not the only agent of nature, which has a productive power; but it is the only one, or nearly so, that one set of men take to themselves, to the exclusion of others; and of which, consequently, they can appropriate the benefits. The waters of rivers, and of the sea, by the power which they have of giving movement to our machines, carrying our boats, nourishing our fish, have also a productive power; the wind which turns our mills, and even the heat of the sun, work for us; but happily no one has yet been able to say, the wind and the sun are mine, and the service which they render must be paid for.” J. B. Say, Économie Politique, as quoted by Ricardo, p. 35. [↑]
[256] This is the general rule. We are fully aware that there are exceptions due to secondary causes, internal and external. Moreover, open resources do not necessarily lead to slavery or serfdom: there are many simple societies in which there are no labouring, as opposed to ruling classes, everybody, or nearly everybody, working for his own wants (e.g. among many hunters, fishers, and hunting agriculturists). [↑]
[257] Malthus (p. 453), speaking of war, says: “One of its first causes and most powerful impulses was undoubtedly an insufficiency of room and food”. [↑]
[258] See Wakefield, pp. 126–134, on the happiness of settlers in new countries. [↑]
[259] A good instance is afforded by the Angoni as described by Wiese. Their king, he tells us, subjected neighbouring tribes and brought them to his own country. “He did not care for the territory deserted by these tribes. It was his chief aim to have the people; to landed property he attached little value” (Wiese, p. 197). [↑]