> Property rights + individual liberty = capitalism.
No, one very specific model of property rights (plus no individual liberty not subsumed within that model) = capitalism.
But, again, the capitalist model of property rights isn’t the only one, and the developed West, where capitalism first became dominant, has been drifting away from the capitalist model of property rights for about 100 years now. (While at the same time rejecting alternatives that much more stridently oppose the capitalist model that grew up in places that attempted to avoid capitalism entirely.)
Can you describe the difference between the "capitalist" model of property rights and the common law model? I wouldn't classify ancient Roman property law as fundamentally different from ours today, would you?
Would you say that the ancient world practiced capitalism? Surely they had wealthy classes of merchants, landowners, bankers, etc. who accumulated capital and did stuff with it.
No, one very specific model of property rights (plus no individual liberty not subsumed within that model) = capitalism.
But, again, the capitalist model of property rights isn’t the only one, and the developed West, where capitalism first became dominant, has been drifting away from the capitalist model of property rights for about 100 years now. (While at the same time rejecting alternatives that much more stridently oppose the capitalist model that grew up in places that attempted to avoid capitalism entirely.)