Was waging war w/ the "Native Americans" right?

[DavidOdden]

Why? That's like saying that if you dont have a concept of trees, then you cant see trees. Obviously the person with no concept of property wouldnt describe what he owns as being his 'property', but does this really make any difference?

It makes a huge difference: it distinguishes between temporary use and actual ownership. The concept "property" is an essential part of the concept "own". What do you own? Property. If it's not property, what's your relationship to the thing? Use, at best. I'm sorta puzzled at the question: what can you own other than property? The issue isn't whether a person knows English well enough to use the word "property", it is whether in fact they have the concept of a rightful permanent but alienable relationship to something, where they may rightfully do what they wish with the thing. Or, are they simply using the object, just as you might use a stick to whack weeds when you're hiking in the woods. Supposing you're treking across the Sahara desert, trodding on unowned land -- what is your relationship to the land? Not ownership, just temporary use.

[ex_banana-eater]

What law of the republic in 1838 forbade the institution of slavery?  Did this law not also apply to the white slave holders of Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and the Gulf states?  Why weren't these white slave owners moved to the west along with the Indians? And suppose the residents of Nebraska were practicing Sharia law.  Would the appropriate response be simply to outlaw the practice of Sharia in Nebraska, or move the entire population of Nebraska to the Mojave desert so they could continue to practice Sharia there?

The tribes were treated as nations, so if they were moved out West they weren't really interfering with actual states. The practices of the Cherokees (basically communism) were outlawed and requested to be ended for some time, so the nation was moved away from the republic.

[Hal]

It makes a huge difference: it distinguishes between temporary use and actual ownership. The concept "property" is an essential part of the concept "own". What do you own? Property. If it's not property, what's your relationship to the thing? Use, at best. I'm sorta puzzled at the question: what can you own other than property? The issue isn't whether a person knows English well enough to use the word "property", it is whether in fact they have the concept of a rightful permanent but alienable relationship to something, where they may rightfully do what they wish with the thing.

In other words, their language contains words which are isomorphic to words like 'rightful', 'own', 'property' etc in English?

[Eric Mathis]

The tribes were treated as nations, so if they were moved out West they weren't really interfering with actual states. The practices of the Cherokees (basically communism) were outlawed and requested to be ended for some time, so the nation was moved away from the republic.

First of all, if communal arrangements are wrong, why not simply forbid such arrangements instead of moving the practitioners to a remote part of the U.S.? And what did the federal government do about whites who practiced communalism? I don't recall the feds forcing the residents of New Harmony to move out west. Furthermore, it is not true that all or even most Cherokee Indians in the 1830s were living in communal arrangements. Many Cherokee families had their own homesteads, farms and shops and exchanged goods in the marketplace alongside whites. The seizure of their land was no different in principle than the Third Reich's seizure of Jewish property 100 years later.

[DavidOdden]

In other words, their language contains words which are isomorphic to words like 'rightful', 'own', 'property' etc in English?

That's a tall order, and a nearly unanswerable question. The language that I know a little of, Lushootseed (the language of the lower Puget Sound), probably did have such terms, but it's hard to know (there's a difference between "have those terms" and "had those terms", in historical discussions). There probably are not enough documents to be certain, but the available evidence does indicate that they had strong notions of individual property, ownership, free trade etc. I don't know if I can determine what the relevant words are: I'll post anything I can find. They (and their various PNW colleagues) would be irrelevant to this discussion, since they were not in the set of propertiless collectivists.

[Brule]

In reading the other replies (DavidOdden's in particular) many of your questions were answered. I will try to reply without being too redundent.

What is ownership of land? If people are living on it, but do not have a notion of ownership such as property rights then do they own the land or do they not own the land?

One cannot own land without having a concept of property rights. If a Lakota tribe occupies an area which is then also occupied by the Pawnee, what recourse can they claim without the concept of property rights? Language is very helpful in understanding history but the concept of property rights is what's important for this issue.

I don't want to make a strawman of Brule's remarks, but he maintained that Native Americans did not have a concept of ownership other than "what land could be grabbed up by use of force." But if the land grabbed was not itself owned by Natives, then how is it force for other Natives to have grabbed it?

In absence of a logical philosophy, no Indian could make a claim that their property was stolen as the concept of property was not known. Of course to survive the Natives in North America were required to have some general sense of property even if they did not know what it was. This was entirely arbitrary based on mystical revelation or tradition. From a western view looking in the raids between native tribes were very violent. When those raids started involving settlers on vacant land the long standing practice of tribal driven force was exposed.

Since the regimes that grabbed land from Natives were themselves not governments for the liberty of men and recognition of rights, I don't see how the land grabbing made by those regimes qualifies as rights minded land grabbing, whether in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

To use the phrase "grabbed land" relies on the very conclusions we are debating so I can't argue your questions directly. The nations of Europe were not perfect by far but they had a set of laws which recognized property (and other) rights. To equal the western nations with a developed philosophy heavily influenced by Aristotle to the primitive tribes of North America is a major error. It would be just as major of an error to base one's judgement of Western-Indian conflict on Western-Western conflicts.

[Eric Mathis]

One cannot own land without having a concept of property rights. If a Lakota tribe occupies an area which is then also occupied by the Pawnee, what recourse can they claim without the concept of property rights?  Language is very helpful in understanding history but the concept of property rights is what's important for this issue.

Then do those without a concept of property rights in this society own land? I’ve met a number of socialists, skeptics and relativists who deny they very existence of a right to property. Would you say that they cannot own land?

In absence of a logical philosophy, no Indian could make a claim that their property was stolen as the concept of property was not known.  Of course to survive the Natives in North America were required to have some general sense of property even if they did not know what it was.  This was entirely arbitrary based on mystical revelation or tradition.  From a western view looking in the raids between native tribes were very violent.  When those raids started involving settlers on vacant land the long standing practice of tribal driven force was exposed.

But making a logical claim and having a right to property are two different things. If a member of the Communist Party offers to paint my house for $500 and I agree, once the house is painted I cannot renege on the agreement on the grounds that the Communist does not have a right to the property (money) due to the absence of a logical philosophy and concept of rights on his part. The $500 would still belong to the Communist even if he could not make a convincing case for his ownership.

To use the phrase "grabbed land" relies on the very conclusions we are debating so I can't argue your questions directly.  The nations of Europe were not perfect by far but they had a set of laws which recognized property (and other) rights.  To equal the western nations with a developed philosophy heavily influenced by Aristotle to the primitive tribes of North America is a major error.  It would be just as major of an error to base one's judgement of Western-Indian conflict on Western-Western conflicts.

One does not have to equate the laws of Western Civilization to those of North American Indians to recognize the possibility that injustice can be perpetrated on those without a rational legal system. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did not have legal systems which recognized individual rights in any meaningful sense. Would it then be correct to say that nobody in those countries was a victim of property rights violations?

Edited May 16, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[Brule]

Then do those without a concept of property rights in this society own land?  I’ve met a number of socialists, skeptics and relativists who deny they very existence of a right to property.  Would you say that they cannot own land?

Their claim to ownership of land would conflict with their socialist beliefs and any socialist who claims another's property (by definition of socialism) while also claiming ownership of their property should be exposed for the blatant contradiction. If that parasite lives under law that respects property rights their property is protected as well.

If a member of the Communist Party offers to paint my house for $500 and I agree, once the house is painted I cannot renege on the agreement on the grounds that the Communist does not have a right to the property (money) due to the absence of a logical philosophy and concept of rights on his part.  The $500 would still belong to the Communist even if he could not make a convincing case for his ownership. 

I'll assume this is a contract in a free (as free as now exists at least) country. The Communist could write essays or stand on the street corner shouting about the evils of the free market, but he has contractually agreed to perform a service for money. By this very action he has gone against the ideas of socialism to susstain life as he must. The concept of property is correct no matter his attempts to deny reality. You must fulfill your side of the contract and pay the $500. If he truly is a socialist the $500 in his wallet will be handed over in sacrifice soon enough.

One does not have to equate the laws of Western Civilization to those of North American Indians to recognize the possibility that injustice can be perpetrated on those without a rational legal system.  Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did not have legal systems which recognized individual rights in any meaningful sense.  Would it then be correct to say that nobody in those countries was a victim of property rights violations?

Are you referring to the citizens of Russia or Germany or those countries they pillaged? When Stalin murdered millions of Russian citizens it was horrible but a failure of government internally is a bad analogy to actions between nations or a nation and a group of tribes. Before going on I will try to refocus on three points which I hold to be true.

1. Killing of a neutral population is not acceptable. Purposely sending pox-filled blankets or marching a neutral population to death is disgusting.

2. Property which is not owned can be claimed and put to use just as any resource. Note that the property must not be owned but could previously had men make temporary use or pass over it. (DavidOdden had a well worded post above on this)

3. When a population turns from neutral to hostile then men must take actions to protect their property including life. People who support those who initiate force are acting in concert with those criminals.

In Soviet Russia property was stolen from its rightful owners by the Bolshevik criminals, who continued to exploit producers. In North America there was no property to steal beyond whatever was within arms reach of the Natives. I'm not sure how to explain this any better as by eyes are starting to bleed. I'll finish with a final question assuming a stronger position for the Indian tribes. Assume that tribes somehow formed a socialist nation. Would the United States have been just taking over the government of that nation? Remember the harsh and often lawless nature of Indian life where ideas of rationality, liberty, and property rights of other countries were not respected. This in no way implies that America was perfect but would be comparable to Israel's existence to its barbaric neighbors.

[Eric Mathis]

Their claim to ownership of land would conflict with their socialist beliefs and any socialist who claims another's property (by definition of socialism) while also claiming ownership of their property should be exposed for the blatant contradiction.  If that parasite lives under law that respects property rights their property is protected as well.

Well, it is self-evident that if a denier of property rights lives under a law that uniformly respects property rights, then the denier’s rights will be respected too. However, that does not address the issue of whether it is legitimate for one living in a society that enjoys legal protection of property rights to take away the property (or lives) of those whose society does not respect property. For example, would it be moral for a resident of Virginia in 1800 to steal blankets and furs from an Indian family living somewhere in the Southwest, beyond U.S. laws?

I'll assume this is a contract in a free (as free as now exists at least) country.  The Communist could write essays or stand on the street corner shouting about the evils of the free market, but he has contractually agreed to perform a service for money.  By this very action he has gone against the ideas of socialism to susstain life as he must.  The concept of property is correct no matter his attempts to deny reality.  You must fulfill your side of the contract and pay the $500.  If he truly is a socialist the $500 in his wallet will be handed over in sacrifice soon enough.

Then by the same token, if an Indian has hunted a bear, skinned it and cured its hide, then that fur would belong to that Indian by natural right. No one (not even a citizen of Jeffersonian America) would have a right to take it from him on the grounds that the Indian’s society did not respect property rights.

Are you referring to the citizens of Russia or Germany or those countries they pillaged?  When Stalin murdered millions of Russian citizens it was horrible but a failure of government internally is a bad analogy to actions between nations or a nation and a group of tribes.  Before going on I will try to refocus on three points which I hold to be true.

Earlier you said, “To equal the western nations with a developed philosophy heavily influenced by Aristotle to the primitive tribes of North America is a major error.” So I intentionally chose a society (Russia) which did not have meaningful formal respect for individual rights even before 1917.

1. Killing of a neutral population is not acceptable.  Purposely sending pox-filled blankets or marching a neutral population to death is disgusting.

We agree.

2. Property which is not owned can be claimed and put to use just as any resource.  Note that the property must not be owned but could previously had men make temporary use or pass over it. (DavidOdden had a well worded post above on this)

Agreed. I would only add that in the case of some Indian tribes, such as the Cherokee by the early 1800s, there was genuine, non-tribal ownership, i.e. permanent settlements with permanent structures, tilled land, and fenced-in livestock, all controlled by individual families.

3. When a population turns from neutral to hostile then men must take actions to protect their property including life.  People who support those who initiate force are acting in concert with those criminals.

Agreed.

In Soviet Russia property was stolen from its rightful owners by the Bolshevik criminals, who continued to exploit producers.  In North America there was no property to steal beyond whatever was within arms reach of the Natives.  I'm not sure how to explain this any better as by eyes are starting to bleed.

No, as I’ve pointed out, in the case of some advanced Indian tribes such as the Cherokee and the Seminole, there was an agrarian society, based on family ownership of a homestead, a system little different from that of white settlers nearby.

  I'll finish with a final question assuming a stronger position for the Indian tribes.  Assume that tribes somehow formed a socialist nation.  Would the United States have been just taking over the government of that nation?  Remember the harsh and often lawless nature of Indian life where ideas of rationality, liberty, and property rights of other countries were not respected.  This in no way implies that America was perfect but would be comparable to Israel's existence to its barbaric neighbors.

I’m not sure how to answer this hypothetical question. There are recent examples of nations which have been liberated from socialism. Grenada had a Marxist government from 1979-1983. You will recall, when the U.S. invaded in 1983, it did not declare that Grenadans had no property rights because their society had not recognized such. Nor did the U.S. move Grenadans off the island and replace them with settlers from the U.S.

[ex_banana-eater]

First of all, if communal arrangements are wrong, why not simply forbid such arrangements instead of moving the practitioners to a remote part of the U.S.?

As I said already, they were repeatedly told to disband, which implies they were forbidden by US law.

  And what did the federal government do about whites who practiced communalism?  I don't recall the feds forcing the residents of New Harmony to move out west.

From my limited knowledge of the state of their society, individuals who did not communally share their property were bannished or dealt with by their own "justice" system, which I assume was lead by a dictatorial chief. There is no right to set up your own government within the US. In order to be a proper government, it must have a monopoly on retaliatory force.

I have no knowledge of "New Harmony," but am I correct to assume that there was no rogue justice system enforcing laws contrary to the American government's?

Furthermore, it is not true that all or even most Cherokee Indians in the 1830s were living in communal arrangements.  Many Cherokee families had their own homesteads, farms and shops and exchanged goods in the marketplace alongside whites.

From my limited knowledge of the Cherokee Indians, I was aware they had embraced Western ideas of farming and trading, but still lived contrary to American law in the way(s) I have already listed.

Edit: Spelling

Edited May 17, 2005 by ex_banana-eater

[curious]

I have read some incredibly intelligently worded BS in this thread. And amongst all those words the actual root of the issue was completely muddled and lost.

Q: Was it moral to use force to claim or conquer North America from it's natives?

A: Of course it was NOT moral, it was extremely advantageous and conceited.

Does anyone disagree the "settlers" main motivation was self-promotion and profit?

Does anyone disagree the "natives" had very distinct concepts of property/ownership? - regarding land it just differed greatly from the settlers, they felt the land owned them(afaik)

So not only did the natives have a concept of property/ownership, they were also the established inhabitants of the land. They had every right to use force to protect their "way of life" even if what they wanted to protect wasn't measured in acres. Our way of life was not congruent with theirs and we used force to replace their way with ours because we didn't feel like we had to adapt. This isn't the first time in human civilization this has happened, I've just never seen it called "moral"

Big fish eats little fish, was he hungry or just trying to "do the right thing"...

COME ON!!

[Eric Mathis]

As I said already, they were repeatedly told to disband, which implies they were forbidden by US law.

I don't know what orders to disband you are talking about. The Cherokees were evicted under the Indian Removal Act of 1830 by 7,000 troops commanded by General Winfield Scott. There had been no prior federal order to dissolve their tribal structure or remove themselves. There was the bogus Treaty of New Echota, which had ceded to the United States all their land east of the Mississippi River for $5,000,000, but it was signed by only a small minority of Cherokees. The overwhelming majority of Cherokees repudiated the treaty and took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor. President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the high court’s ruling and ordered the eviction to proceed.

From my limited knowledge of the state of their society, individuals who did not communally share their property were bannished or dealt with by their own "justice" system, which I assume was lead by a dictatorial chief. There is no right to set up your own government within the US. In order to be a proper government, it must have a monopoly on retaliatory force.

You are misinformed. There was individual ownership of improvements such as tilled land, permanent buildings and fenced in property by members in good standing of the Cherokee tribe. As far a dictatorial chief, the Cherokees had a constitution and a bill of rights modeled after that of the United States. As for setting up a government within the U.S., the Cherokees did no such thing. The land they occupied in the western Carolinas, Georgia and Tennessee had long been recognized as theirs by agreements such as the Treaty of Augusta, the Treaty of DeWitt's Corner the Treaty of Long Island of Holston.

I have no knowledge of "New Harmony," but am I correct to assume that there was no rogue justice system enforcing laws contrary to the American government's?

You are correct.

From my limited knowledge of the Cherokee Indians, I was aware they had embraced Western ideas of farming and trading, but still lived contrary to American law in the way(s) I have already listed.

There was no problem posed by the Cherokees to enforcement of U.S. law within U.S.'s own officially recognized boundaries. The Cherokee had even aided Jackson in his war against the Creek Indians (1813-14). The only problem was that the Cherokees occupied land in North Georgia where gold had been discovered in 1828.

[Brule]

I have read some incredibly intelligently worded BS in this thread. And amongst all those words the actual root of the issue was completely muddled and lost.

Nope, we're having a very interesting debate on the subject. Here is a quote from another post you made today.

FYI: I don't claim to be anything but ignorant on objectivism, that's why I'm here.

This thread is based on Objectivist ideas. If you are ignorant of those ideas please refrain from calling the debate "BS" based on your unknown (undefined?) philosophy.

Q: Was it moral to use force to claim or conquer North America from it's natives?

A: Of course it was NOT moral, it was extremely advantageous and conceited.

Based on what system of morality? If you mean they did it selfishly then it was extremely moral.

Does anyone disagree the "settlers" main motivation was self-promotion and profit?

Profit does not equal evil or bad. Profit is a great thing. If their motivation was not profit or selfishness there would be problems. Those putting forward posts in defense of North American Natives may disagree with your statement. (we're all natives of Asia so I tend to use Indian for ease of discussion)

Does anyone disagree the "natives" had very distinct concepts of property/ownership?  - regarding land it just differed greatly from the settlers, they felt the land owned them(afaik)

Land cannot own people.

Our way of life was not congruent with theirs and we used force to replace their way with ours because we didn't feel like we had to adapt. This isn't the first time in human civilization this has happened, I've just never seen it called "moral"

There's a first time for everything.

[ex_banana-eater]

You are misinformed.  There was individual ownership of improvements such as tilled land, permanent buildings and fenced in property by members in good standing of the Cherokee tribe.  As far a dictatorial chief, the Cherokees had a constitution and a bill of rights modeled after that of the United States. 

I have a question (since you have more knowledge of the historical events than I): If the Cherokee had a separate constitution than the United States, does this not imply an alternative government? Were these alternative laws enforced by tribe members?

As for setting up a government within the U.S., the Cherokees did no such thing.  The land they occupied in the western Carolinas, Georgia and Tennessee had long been recognized as theirs by agreements such as the Treaty of Augusta, the Treaty of DeWitt's Corner the Treaty of Long Island of Holston.

If the Cherokees had their own constitution and legal system, how did they not set up their own government within the US? If there were any previous treaties lending legitimacy to their tribe as a sovereign government, they were wrong.

[curious]

I suppose I should clarify... even on SOME of the posts I generally agreed with SOME of the explanations contained therein seemed to me to be incredibly worded bs. That's a subjective opinion of mine. Meant to be more of a comment than a statement. That's why I didn't bother quoting anything. I certainly never intended to imply the entire debate was bs, why would I bother posting if it was

Brule, your latter statements did however make me evaluate what is meant by morality.

In my nonobjectivist-educated psyche morality holds more of a meaning of goodness, or fairness, or "do unto others" golden rule like. In the past day of reading here and further I've come to understand this isn't necessarrily the same for the true Objectivist.

This quote from Rand would surely back up your statement about the morality in selfishness, and apathy towards other members of your species

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."

I consider myself informed and thank you for taking issue with me there

True to my name I would like to ask a question about "objectivist morality." Well maybe a few questions.

1.How does an objectivist accept laws which put limits on the extent to which they can truly achieve their own self-happines? ("highest moral purpose of his life" -rand)

2.Would Hitlers actions have been considered "moral" according to his pursuit of his own self-happiness?

3. One of the Objectivist Ethical Virtues is "Integrity" or the honesty of ones actions, Since many of the actions to promote "settlement" were very dishonest wouldn't that make the actions not ethical and thus not moral? Or would you just say something moral was done in an immoral way? (many would argue the entire process was dishonest thus not ethical or moral)

-adam

[Eric Mathis]

I have a question (since you have more knowledge of the historical events than I): If the Cherokee had a separate constitution than the United States, does this not imply an alternative government? Were these alternative laws enforced by tribe members?

See Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government recognized tribes as legal entities. Numerous treaties between the federal government and the tribes provided lines of demarcation between federal authority and Indian authority. Yes, the Cherokee had their own government. You could call it an alternate law, if you think of the Canadian legal code as an alternate law.

If the Cherokees had their own constitution and legal system, how did they not set up their own government within the US?

Because agreements between the Cherokee and state and federal governments had established where state/federal authority ended and where Indian authority began.

If there were any previous treaties lending legitimacy to their tribe as a sovereign government, they were wrong.

Then why did the federal and state governments sign such agreements as the First and Second Treaties of Long Island of Holston (July 20, 1777 and July 26, 1781) if they were wrong?

[ex_banana-eater]

See Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.  The federal government recognized tribes as legal entities.  Numerous treaties between the federal government and the tribes provided lines of demarcation between federal authority and Indian authority.  Yes, the Cherokee had their own government.  You could call it an alternate law, if you think of the Canadian legal code as an alternate law.

It is, that is why Canada is a separate state just like any other country separate from the US.

Then why did the federal and state governments sign such agreements as the First and Second Treaties of Long Island of Holston (July 20, 1777 and July 26, 1781) if they were wrong?

Because they held the wrong premises. That's why slavery was allowed, the Sherman Act was passed, and people are being evicted from their homes on wetlands to protect the environment.

[Eric Mathis]

It is, that is why Canada is a separate state just like any other country separate from the US.

Because they held the wrong premises. That's why slavery was allowed, the Sherman Act was passed, and people are being evicted from their homes on wetlands to protect the environment.

Let me see if I follow you. Is it your position that the Congress erred in ratifying a treaty with the Cherokee Indians, a treaty, by the way, which actually expanded U.S. territory and reduced Cherokee territory?

If that is the case, why recognize Canadian territory? After all, Canada was ruled by a king that the U.S. had just fought against for highly principled reasons. Isn’t recognizing any government other than our own a case of holding the wrong premises?

Edited May 19, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[softwareNerd]

The question about the removal of native americans is similar to the one about colonialism, in a recent thread. There's no short answer, because the historical context has to be presented as part of the answer.

Consider this: there are two neighboring monarchies, neither of which fully respects rights. From time to time, people on the borders of the two nations fight with each other. Sometimes the kings get involved and there's a real battle. After one battle, one kingdom forced the other to retreat and cede some land. Was that moral?

An Objectivist reading the above example might be prompted to point out that the above example is different because the settlers' political sytem was far more moral than the aboriginals' one. However, if anything, that simply strengthens the case in favor of the more moral "kingdom".

I am not saying that we simply excuse the two kingdoms for their ignorance. However, if one wishes to pronounce moral judgement, look at both the kingdoms. If one looks at the details one would surely find that there were specific injustices by settlers and others by natives. What of it?

An answer such as: "yes, there was a lot of injustice on part of the settlers", is incomplete because it leaves out at least half of the story.

Back to the future: in the Amazon jungles, there are tribes that live ...well, like tribes. Loggers want to go in and cut the forest down. The loggers are more modern and well armed. So, in a battle between them and the tribes, they're bound to win. The BBC has a story about this. If today's Brazilian government had to decide the matter using the concept of individual rights, how should it do so?

If we assume that the Amazonian tribals do not have a concept of property, it does not follow that they can be exterminated. Nor does it imply that they can be evicted from their land, purely for that reason. I think the right approach is to give them formal property rights.

A legal scholar (David ? ) , could use the principle of property rights to determine what specific rights the tribals have and do not have. Their historical usages should be appropriately (i.e. not excessively) converted to legitimate property rights, with the appropriate "easements" within those claims.

[erik]

I've participated in these threads before and I always find them interesting. A few points.

As a student of Objectivism I'm not completely versed in everything so feel free to correct me if I make errors in reasoning where appropriate. Also forgive me if I make typos. I used to be good at spelling when I was younger but for some reason have lost that ability.

1. The Native Americans are said to have no concept of property. That may be true at 1st contact ( 1492 ) but the Europeans at that time didn't have a much better one. There was a cultural exchange that happened for the next 300 years while Europe developed individual rights, limited govt etc. Natives traded furs etc with Europeans for weapons, finished goods during much of this time. To trade both parties have to recognize property rights correct?

2. Objectivism did not exist back then. So to say 19th century US govt was moral or not moral in what it did just seems silly to me. The US Consititution has been violated ever since it was written by many individuals or groups of individuals. While it is the greatest gov't created as of yet it has many flaws which allow non-moral things to happen all the time.

3. About the only thing you can say with certainty is Natives and Europeans both did bad things to eachother. There are too many factors involved to make gross generalizations.

[DavidOdden]

1. The Native Americans are said to have no concept of property. That may be true at 1st contact ( 1492 ) but the Europeans at that time didn't have a much better one.

There's an important difference between the Dutch and the rest. The Dutch were the most advanced in getting a grip on capitalism, and the Spanish were the worst. Interaction between Indians and Americans didn't start to get improper until the 18th century; and most interactions remained civilized into the 19th century.

To trade both parties have to recognize property rights correct?

Not necessarily: it could simply be based on whimsical recognition of what you've got. People have been trading for a very long time, without there being a real concept of rightful ownership, for example "I've got this dead beaver, and if I give it to the white man, he'll give me a new knife". In addition, there's a significant distinction between thinking "I own this dead beaver" and "I own this land": land ownership is a rather advanced economic concept.

Objectivism did not exist back then. So to say 19th century US govt was moral or not moral in what it did just seems silly to me.

It's not at all silly, although it is a purely academic exercise. I have no question in my mind that the BIA policies of the later 19th and early 20th century were quite immoral, and they were US government policy, not just rogue actions. On the other hand, the policy of protecting settlers against murderous attacks was a completely moral policy, despite the fact that Objectivism wasn't around. When we speak of "moral", we mean simply "choosing the good over the evil". Necessarily, it means "given what you know".

About the only thing you can say with certainty is Natives and Europeans both did bad things to each other. There are too many factors involved to make gross generalizations.

Well, there are other things you can say with certainty, but they are specific -- i.e. claims about the collectives "the Indians" and "whiteman" are wrong. In contrast, the specific rights and wrongs on both sides in, say, Puget Sound, are well enough known that you can say that -- excluding federal interventions by the BIA in the 20's and 30's -- that interactions were fairly rational (although economically one-sided).

[Captain Nate]

(Oy, what a place to put my first post!)

I have just started reading Rand's work, and recently read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and I recall a passage about Manifest Destiny in which Ayn was critical of it, I suppose for its statist and collectivist tendencies.

I cannot imagine it could be justified for the government, on behalf of "society", to force people to move off their land. I think the only way to justify the expansion of the United States onto land otherwise held by other people would be through free settling & commerce.

[Hal]

I cannot imagine it could be justified for the government, on behalf of "society", to force people to move off their land. I think the only way to justify the expansion of the United States onto land otherwise held by other people would be through free settling & commerce.

How about if the government buys the land (eg the Louisiana purchase)? Or would that fall under commerce?

[Captain Nate]

What I meant by "settlement or commerce" i meant either by a) Americans moving west and SETTLING land (and extending the borders of the United States into currently "unoccupied" territory), or Americans purchasing land from Indians & other settlers out West.

I think most of us agree that government should remain outside of the market (not buying/selling). However, land purchases such as the Louisiana Purchase may prove a kind of exception (if anyone else has a different interpretation, please chime in!). It already "belonged" to another nation (france), and that nation would not sell to individuals, it would only make deals with other governments (such is the nature of international relations). So, on behalf of the people of the United States, it secured the land. I'm sure the ideal method would be for private individuals, with prospects of settlings in "Louisiana" would voluntarily pay for it, via the government, but I don't think that such a situation could have been established in order to accomplish the sale. I suppose you could also argue that the purchase was made in the national interests of the US, to protect its future sovereignty from any threats. Did Ayn Rand ever write about the Louisiana Purchase, or other government actions similar to it?

Clearly though, once the United States government possessed the land (as a custodian, not an owner), it should then act, as Rand advocated in her essay The Property Status of Airwaves, to create legal methods for individuals to acquire the land through the process of homesteading. I don't think it could be justified for the government to purchase land and develop it (except for the purpose of creating the instruments of a just government, i.e. building a capital, police station, military bases etc).

Edited June 12, 2005 by Captain Nate

[PoliticalJunkie]

Rand addresses this exact topic on a Q & A on one of the audio tapes I have. She basically says that the settlers were not immoral to "take over" the land because the American Indians did not recognize property rights, were extremely collectivist (i.e. tribes), and more or less lived like savages.