RGacky3
15th March 2011, 11:29
Specifically Babylonian Law,
Translation of the Hammurbari Code. (http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm)
The interesting thing about Babylonian economics imo opinion was the rights of slaves, who had property rights, had medical rights, clothing and shelter rights, many times the "slaves" were nothing more than renters, running a farm or buisiness and paying rent (profit) to the owner), he had a right to purchase freedom for himself.
What I find interesting about this is that the life of a slave in the babylonian world looks a lot like a modern wage slave, "purchasing" your freedom would be the equivilant of saving up to buy a home or having economic freedom (your own buisiness or becoming part of the proffessional/manegerial class), HOWEVER the babylonian slave was actually almost more likely to attain freedom because his food, clothing, shelter and healthcare was a right, meaning all his income/property could go to either stuff he wanted, or saving up for freedom, whereas the modern wage slave does not have that security, and those fundementals are often made unstable to keep wage slaves in check.
The nature of the temple is also interesting, it acted as both a kind of central bank, a state treasury and a welfare system. They took taxes (in the form of tithes), they took some surplus grain and rented it out (without interest) to poor farmers, even the king had to rent from the temple, the temple was also a type of insurance for people who could'nt pay ransom for a captured person and so on.
Merchents were heavily regulated, reciepts were mandetory, losses in traveling by robbery or whatever were not allowed to be demanded from contractors.
Then you have land property rights, certain land that was considered ultimately owned by the state could not be sold or disposed of even though the owner had the right to its produce, in exchange for servace, other land was taxed
workers could not be held financially accountable for bad harvests (unless it was proven that they did'nt work), public works, irrigation and so on was communally owned and every one was required to maintain it, if one failed he had to compensate everyone else.
If the landowner profit shared with his workers, they shared losses too, if the worker was paying rent (freeman or slave), the landlord could not interfere with the work, nor could he prevent subletting, shepards pay was set.
The monetary system back then was mainly grain and other commodity money (including gold coins).
Property laws were almost always, in history conditional.
Interesting stuff.
Translation of the Hammurbari Code. (http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm)
The interesting thing about Babylonian economics imo opinion was the rights of slaves, who had property rights, had medical rights, clothing and shelter rights, many times the "slaves" were nothing more than renters, running a farm or buisiness and paying rent (profit) to the owner), he had a right to purchase freedom for himself.
What I find interesting about this is that the life of a slave in the babylonian world looks a lot like a modern wage slave, "purchasing" your freedom would be the equivilant of saving up to buy a home or having economic freedom (your own buisiness or becoming part of the proffessional/manegerial class), HOWEVER the babylonian slave was actually almost more likely to attain freedom because his food, clothing, shelter and healthcare was a right, meaning all his income/property could go to either stuff he wanted, or saving up for freedom, whereas the modern wage slave does not have that security, and those fundementals are often made unstable to keep wage slaves in check.
The nature of the temple is also interesting, it acted as both a kind of central bank, a state treasury and a welfare system. They took taxes (in the form of tithes), they took some surplus grain and rented it out (without interest) to poor farmers, even the king had to rent from the temple, the temple was also a type of insurance for people who could'nt pay ransom for a captured person and so on.
Merchents were heavily regulated, reciepts were mandetory, losses in traveling by robbery or whatever were not allowed to be demanded from contractors.
Then you have land property rights, certain land that was considered ultimately owned by the state could not be sold or disposed of even though the owner had the right to its produce, in exchange for servace, other land was taxed
workers could not be held financially accountable for bad harvests (unless it was proven that they did'nt work), public works, irrigation and so on was communally owned and every one was required to maintain it, if one failed he had to compensate everyone else.
If the landowner profit shared with his workers, they shared losses too, if the worker was paying rent (freeman or slave), the landlord could not interfere with the work, nor could he prevent subletting, shepards pay was set.
The monetary system back then was mainly grain and other commodity money (including gold coins).
Property laws were almost always, in history conditional.
Interesting stuff.