Feb 17Liked by Antonia Malchik

Once again I find myself dragged back to classics I ignored. Thanks.

Being charitable, it is not easy to wade through all the issues and all the situations for which one must account in a discussion of propery, without contradicting oneself. But it is absolutely amazing that one of the cornerstones of our law hangs together so poorly. Or maybe not. The Founding Fathers relied on both Blackstone and Locke, who were not in agreement on what one would think is a fundamental point, but they all managed to stumble to the same conclusion. "Without private property there is chaos."

Except that wasn't true and they must have known it wasn't. The enclosures (it would be interesting to know how much Blackstone knew about them or if he wrote anything about them) created chaos in their time, although I guess much of that was localized and spread out over many years, maybe not big news to England's educated elite. The colonists must have known about the enclosures, but they weren't relevant over here.

So, I guess we boil it down to the privileged getting to write the definitions that suit them, even when .they know better

Expand full comment

yes! 😠 black stone was also referenced at some point and made me think of the coverture laws. Insanity that we’re citing laws that erased people’s personhood as precedent. Just like RBG (why rbg??) citing the doctrine of discovery and ruling against the tribes in a decision (can’t recall the specific name). ugh!

Expand full comment

I can't stop thinking about coverture laws and Blackstone's definitions of marriage, how a husband and wife become one person in the law and the person is the husband. The wife is basically erased. And that Alito referenced Blackstone repeatedly in overturning Roe. The roots of property and ownership lead back to disenfranchisement of non-white men, women, and children, as well as the land. Property as the root of oppression. This details in all of this reading are really fascinating to learn.

Expand full comment