Industrial wealth’s physical form drove demands for stricter theft laws

Evidence

And this illegality, while resented by the bourgeoisie where the ownership of land was concerned, was intolerable in commercial and industrial ownership: the development of the ports, the appearance of great warehouses in which merchandise was stored, the organization of huge workshops (with considerable quantities of raw materials, tools and manufactured articles, which belonged to the entrepreneurs and which were difficult to supervise) also necessitated a severe repression of illegality. The way in which wealth tended to be invested, on a much larger scale than ever before, in commodities and machines presupposed a systematic, armed intolerance of illegality. — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 142

Categorization

• XREF: The claim that the physical form of capital (warehouses, workshops hard to supervise) generates the demand for surveillance/repression connects directly to the reader’s interest in the causal mechanism producing constant surveillance. — connects to: Rising wealth raises tolerance for violence but intolerance for property crime — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 131; Bourgeois landed property recast peasant customary rights as theft requiring punishment — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 141; Capitalism recast tolerated popular customs as criminal property theft — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 143 (+1 more)
• SEED: The observation that ‘wealth invested in commodities and machines presupposed a systematic armed intolerance’ — arbitrageable commodities vs. land — could seed an essay on why the architecture of property determines the architecture of policing and watching.

Related

• Rising wealth raises tolerance for violence but intolerance for property crime (similarity 0.83)
• Capitalism recast tolerated popular customs as criminal property theft (similarity 0.79)