1~

at

232 / PARADOXES or FORCED LABOR

though they longed for freedom, slaves could strive to de-
velop and improve themselves in the only way that was
open to them.

Still, Stampp came remarkably close to discovering the

Wine nature of the slave system, the true advantage of bond-

age to the agricultural capitalists who dominated antebellum
socie: . ut

orce. orce could, and often did, lead to cruelty, but not
535 much cruelty as Stampp then believed. For what most
iiplanters sought was not “ erf " submission but “optimal”
sgbmission. These are two very difierent concepts. If Stampp
blurred the distinction, it was because, like so many before
him, he tended to confuse rhetoric with reality. “Perfect”
submission was the rhetorical position of the’ master class,

men who ran the slave plantations were not usually psy-

’chological perverts who gluried in the exercise of unlimited

force for its own sake. They generally used force for exactly

the same purpose as they used positive incentives — to

achieve the largest product at the lowest cost. Like every-
ing else, they strove to use force not cruelly, but optimally. J

The Economic Significance of
Property Rights in Man

In recent years economists have extended the use of the

{/concept of capital beyond its usual application to machines,
j buildings, and other inanimate objects. They have applied

3%  the concept of capital to the wealth inherent in the capacity

' of human beings to perform labor, calling such wealth

 d.” This extension of the concept seemed odd

I at first because it was applied not to explain behavior in

ineteenth—century slave societies but in twentieth—century

not its practical objective. The shrewd capitalistic businessfl

 

PROPERTY RIGHTS IN MAN /' 233

free societies. Nobody doubts that human beings wereflaq
form of capital in slave society. Slaves who were traded
commanded prices as specific and well—defined as those on ‘ 3;
land, buildings, or machines. Since prices of slaves varied by
age, health, skill level, and geographic location, it is clear
that the vocational training of slaves or their relocation from
one region to another were just as much forms of investment

as the erection of a building or extension of a fence.

What made the application of the concept of human capi-
tal to free societies seem odd is that free people are not]
traded in well~deflned markets and hence do not command
market prices. However, the absence of explicit market
prices on human beings does not mean that free men do not
actually have capital values, but only that the absence of a
trade in human beings usually prevents their capital values
from being made explicit. Legal recognition of the fact tha
free people continue to have capital values takes place when-
ever courts grant cash awards to the widows of men killed
in industrial accidents. The amount of such an award usu-
ally turns on a debate regarding the capital value of the
deceased at the time of his death. .

Viewed in this light, the crucial difference between slave) _
and free society rests not on the existence of property rights l .,,>,
in man, in human capital, but on who may hold title to such
property rights. Under freedom, each person holds title, more
0-1:-Ti§;—,'?¢THi§‘ own human capital. He is prevented by lays;
from selling the title to this capital except for quite limited
periods of time and then only under a very restricted set of
conditions. Moreover, one generally cannot sell the title
to the human capital of others, or if such sales are permitted
(as in the cases of the contracts of movie and athletic stars,
or as in the case of the parents or guardians of minors), the
title is transferred only for relatively_short intervals of time
and under strictly defined limitations. In slave societies, 5:
however, a large number of individuals were permanently
deprived of the title to their own human capital. Those who

 
 
    
   
 

it