Extracting resources from primitive countries

[progressiveman1]

Are any rights involved in primitive societies? For example, Shell oil company going over to Nigeria to extract oil from that land. Morally, can they completely disregard the Nigerian citizen's rights because of the type of society they live in? Like setting up property on the citizen's land, not being concerned about destroying other's land from oil spills or gas flaring, or even murdering the citizens who are, for whatever reason, in the way of their oil production.

Provide a link if this topic has been covered here. My search function hasn't been working.

Edited April 5, 2008 by progressiveman1

[DavidOdden]

Are any rights involved in primitive societies?

Yes. It's the same whether a society is primitive or complicated. Thus, kidnapping and enslaving primitives is a violation of their rights.

For example, Shell oil company going over to Nigeria to extract oil from that land. Morally, can they completely disregard the Nigerian citizen's rights because of the type of society they live in?

No, morally they must respect the rights of Nigerian individuals. That would include respect for property rights. However, the basic rights violation was performed by someone else, namely some Nigerian regime. It is sometime correctly argued that certain land is unowned and that the locals had no concept of individual property rights, but that is not applicable w.r.t. at least the Edo of the Niger Delta. The Nigerian government has taken this land "for the greater good" and sold concessions to Shell.

Like setting up property on the citizen's land, not being concerned about destroying other's land from oil spills or gas flaring, or even murdering the citizens who are, for whatever reason, in the way of their oil production.

Your accusation of murder is beneath you. They are not setting up property on the citizen's land, since it is no longer the citizen's land. It was taken by the central authorities a couple of generations ago.

[Gary Brenner]

Why would people in primitive societies be less entitled to rights than any other people? My understanding of Objectivism is that man's rights are derived from his nature, not from the particular condition of his society.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If rights cannot be violated in Nigeria, then we would have to hold blameless anyone who stole property from Shell Oil or murdered one of its employees.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Gary Brenner

[DavidOdden]

Why would people is primitive societies be less entitled to rights than any other people? My understanding of Objectivism is that man's rights are derived from his nature, not from the particular condition of his society.

The argument is simply that a presumption of property rights cannot be made, in particular in primitive hunter-gatherer societies, so anyone may claim and used land that happens to have been used by primitives who don't own the land. So there's no lessening of lesser rights entitlement, just a recognition of the irrelevance of certain rights to some people. If a person doesn't own something, they don't have a property right to it.

[progressiveman1]

Yes. It's the same whether a society is primitive or complicated. Thus, kidnapping and enslaving primitives is a violation of their rights.

That's what I was thinking, but I heard Rand say in her Donahue interview about the US extracting oil from other countries: "They(the foreign country) have no right to their soil if they do nothing with it. Well, rights are not involved in those primitive societies."

They are not setting up property on the citizen's land, since it is no longer the citizen's land. It was taken by the central authorities a couple of generations ago.

So Shell has no obligation to clean up oil spills or be concerned about destruction of land in Nigeria? Only if the Nigerian gov't tells them they have to, not because of the principle of not violating other's property rights since none of the property is privately owned? Is that what you're saying?

Edit: I just saw that you implicitly answered why Rand said that statement.

Edited April 5, 2008 by progressiveman1

[DavidOdden]

So Shell has no obligation to clean up oil spills or be concerned about destruction of land in Nigeria?

That's basically unanswerable. They have no property right to dump goo on someone else's property, and it's just about impossible to determine if it is in fact someone else's property. Legal obligations created by force are another matter: their existence can't be denied. And morally speaking, if they were to actually trespass on some individual's property, that would be wrong. You'd have to point to something specific.

[Gary Brenner]

The argument is simply that a presumption of property rights cannot be made, in particular in primitive hunter-gatherer societies, so anyone may claim and used land that happens to have been used by primitives who don't own the land. So there's no lessening of lesser rights entitlement, just a recognition of the irrelevance of certain rights to some people. If a person doesn't own something, they don't have a property right to it.

Anyone? So the land beneath Primitive Man A's teepee may be claimed and used by Primitive Man B? Or do we recognize only the claim of a less primitive conqueror? Say, a man with gunpowder and horses who seizes the land on behalf of his queen?

[DavidOdden]

Anyone? So the land beneath Primitive Man A's teepee may be claimed and used by Primitive Man B?

I don't know what you mean by "claimed". Whether B can remove A's teepee is a matter of tribal custom. But A's use of the land at a particular time is not "by right". Primitives are on a very long camping trip -- they don't gain a property right just because they pitch a tent somewhere.

[KendallJ]

Primitives are on a very long camping trip -- they don't gain a property right just because they pitch a tent somewhere.

I love that analogy. That's about the most succintly I've ever heard it put.

[KendallJ]

That's what I was thinking, but I heard Rand say in her Donahue interview about the US extracting oil from other countries: "They(the foreign country) have no right to their soil if they do nothing with it. Well, rights are not involved in those primitive societies."

This is answered in it's complete context specifically by Rand in her essay "Collectivized Rights", and is a common source of discussion when it comes to primitive peoples. There are many threads about it.

This applies to all forms of tribal savagery, ancient or modern, primitive or "industrialized." Neither geography nor race nor tradition nor previous state of development can confer on some human beings the "right" to violate the rights of others.

The right of "the self-determination of nations" applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom; it does not apply to dictatorships. Just as an individual's right of free action does not include the "right" to commit crimes (that is, to violate the rights of others), so the right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as "the right to enslave." A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal—but neither can do it by right.

It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; <vos_122> the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Whether a slave society was conquered or chose to be enslaved, it can claim no national rights and no recognition of such "rights" by civilized countries—just as a mob of gangsters cannot demand a recognition of its "rights" and a legal equality with an industrial concern or a university, on the ground that the gangsters chose by unanimous vote to engage in that particular kind of group activity.

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called "Free World" consists of various "mixed economies," it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All "mixed economies" are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand <vos_123> a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

Progressiveman, your questions pre-suppose a broad negation of rights based upon Rand's statement, when her context is very clearly as regards property rights of people who don't have a concept of property. Property rights have to be established, just as all rights of a people who does not recognize rights must be. However, as I understand it, unlike individual rights which vest within the individual, a people cannot simply claim land by virtue of the fact that they as David said, "pitch a tent". If you don't have a concept of property, everyone is a squatter until such concepts are established. Maybe in the establishment of those rights there is some consideration givne to who was where, and when but it is not a fundamental.

A bit beside the point, however, it provides some context to her statements. The passage you're probably most interseted in is in bold.

While her statement is true in principle, the specifics of Arabian oil exploration vary a bit. In most cases oil companies negotiated rights with member countries which were then reneged on, either through outright nationalization or through "national" buy-outs, as in the case of Saudi Arabia. The fact is that oil companies established their rights and had them taken away, only after they had supplied enough infrastructure to allow the oil to be pumped and generate revenues. Rand was right to be outraged in the interview for this reason.

Edited April 5, 2008 by KendallJ

[Gary Brenner]

I don't know what you mean by "claimed".

"Claim" is the word you used in Post #4: ". . . so anyone may claim and used land that happens to have been used by primitives who don't own the land."

So when I asked who may exercise the right to "claim and use," I was simply referring back to your previous statement. If you wish, we will assign whatever meaning you intended in Post #4.

Whether B can remove A's teepee is a matter of tribal custom.

Even when A and B are from different tribes with conflicting customs?

But A's use of the land at a particular time is not "by right". Primitives are on a very long camping trip -- they don't gain a property right just because they pitch a tent somewhere.

Then this raises the question: what exactly must men do to establish rights in property? So far in this discussion, the only hint I've gleaned is that men must stop being "primitive." But this is a term that, to say the least, is open to a wide range of interpretations.

[Michael McGuire]

What I'm wondering is, how valid is a contract with an immoral government that suppresses its people's rights? Can or should one make a contract with such a government? If the property within the concession Shell got from Nigeria is improperly held by the Nigerian government, because Nigeria meets the criteria of Rand's definition of an outlaw government (it just might), is Shell justified in using the land?

[progressiveman1]

If you don't have a concept of property, everyone is a squatter until such concepts are established.

What do you mean by that? From what I understand of ownership, it just means a person has to use a piece of property in order to own it. So if someone sets up a tent to live in on an unowned piece of land then that person now owns that piece of land, right?

[Grant]

Out of interest, how does all this relate to Israel?

Before the Zionist movement, Israel was inhabited by a primative, nomadic civilization who today call themselves Palestinians.

Did these people have no right to their land? Did Zionists have the right to come into Israel and remove them from their land?

I'm passionately in favour of the existance of Israel, but this is one question that I struggle to answer.

[Maximus]

Most of those who today call themselves Palistinians were refugees from Jordan. They became refugees because of the Six Day War. They remained refugees because the Muslims used them as a political propaganda weapon against Israel.

[Grant]

Most of those who today call themselves Palistinians were refugees from Jordan. They became refugees because of the Six Day War. They remained refugees because the Muslims used them as a political propaganda weapon against Israel.

The Six Day War was an Israeli war. Hence the Zionist movement had already entered the state.

I'm talking about pre-zionism. The people who inhabited the land at that time.

[KendallJ]

What do you mean by that? From what I understand of ownership, it just means a person has to use a piece of property in order to own it. So if someone sets up a tent to live in on an unowned piece of land then that person now owns that piece of land, right?

The way I've always understood it is that "use" means "work". Hunting on it or making a temporary encampment as nomadic indian tribes did is not the same thing. If they didn't claim ownership or trade it amonst themselves, then they didn't have a concept of property rights, and as such making broad claims to it a posterori is false. This is Rand's key fundamental, whether it be dictatorship or savagery. You can't not have an idea of rights, and then use the idea of rights as a shield against entry.

But let's take that to be true. Is that what people mean when they say that North Amercia belonged to the Indian's. The entirety of North America? Such a standard as "working" the land very quickly limits the claim. Property rights are very specific, not broad. By such an analysis most tribes could probably have "claimed" a few acres of land. And the majority of North America would have been considered "wild".

Edited April 6, 2008 by KendallJ

[DavidOdden]

"Claim" is the word you used in Post #4: ". . . so anyone may claim and used land that happens to have been used by primitives who don't own the land."

I didn't assume you mean "claim" in the standard way, like I used it, because then you would be advancing a contradiction, viz that a person without a concept of individual property or society makes a very complicated derived assertion requiring concepts of society and individual property. Since that would be ridiculous, I can't accept your claim that that's what you mean by "claim".

Even when A and B are from different tribes with conflicting customs?

Then as usual, among primitives, the stronger man will win.

Then this raises the question: what exactly must men do to establish rights in property?

Leave the world of the primitive; grasp the concept of "property", "rights", "society" and "law". Put down the frickin club, start relying on reason.

So far in this discussion, the only hint I've gleaned is that men must stop being "primitive." But this is a term that, to say the least, is open to a wide range of interpretations.

A better term would be "uncivilized". Shall we agree to make that change?

[DavidOdden]

What I'm wondering is, how valid is a contract with an immoral government that suppresses its people's rights? Can or should one make a contract with such a government? If the property within the concession Shell got from Nigeria is improperly held by the Nigerian government, because Nigeria meets the criteria of Rand's definition of an outlaw government (it just might), is Shell justified in using the land?

This is a subcategory of the "how do we survive rationally in a semi-rational world?" problem. When the government taxes men so that the cannot survive, then offers assitance in survival, is it proper to accept government aid? Yes. When a government takes land improperly but then makes it appear to be available through a parody of the free-market, is it proper to enter into such an arrangement? Yes. The moral blame lies with those men to used or advocated force.

[Gary Brenner]

I didn't assume you mean "claim" in the standard way, like I used it, because then you would be advancing a contradiction, viz that a person without a concept of individual property or society makes a very complicated derived assertion requiring concepts of society and individual property. Since that would be ridiculous, I can't accept your claim that that's what you mean by "claim".

Since I made no statements at all about people “without a concept of individual property or society [making] a very complicated derived assertion requiring concepts of society and individual property,” I can hardly be accused of advancing that contradiction or any other. I merely wondered if you literally meant “anyone” in your statement “Anyone may claim and used land that happens to have been used by primitives who don't own the land.”

Leave the world of the primitive; grasp the concept of "property", "rights", "society" and "law". Put down the frickin club, start relying on reason.A better term would be "uncivilized". Shall we agree to make that change?

Let’s go back to my example of the man who has built a teepee on a plot of land. You wrote in Post #8, “But A's use of the land at a particular time is not ‘by right.’ Primitives are on a very long camping trip -- they don't gain a property right just because they pitch a tent somewhere.”

If I understand you correctly, it is not A’s clearing of the land and construction of the teepee that gives him the right to it. It is A’s grasping “the concept of ‘property’, ‘rights’, ‘society’ and ‘law’” that does the trick.

Accordingly. let us suppose, that A learns how to read, puts down his “frickin club” and picks up works by Aristotle, Locke and Rand instead. Then would we say he is entitled to his teepee and the ground beneath it?

If so, then it is not A’s labor that earns him a right to property but his intellectual qualifications. A would own his teepee and the land beneath it on the basis of his ability to pass a test on property, rights and law. On the other hand, A’s neighbor, B, who has not boned up on those issues, would be undeserving of any right to the teepee he constructed on the land he cleared.

Is that correct?

[DavidOdden]

If I understand you correctly, it is not A’s clearing of the land and construction of the teepee that gives him the right to it. It is A’s grasping “the concept of ‘property’, ‘rights’, ‘society’ and ‘law’” that does the trick.

You could try again, without confusing the concepts "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions.

If so, then it is not A’s labor that earns him a right to property but his intellectual qualifications. A would own his teepee and the land beneath it on the basis of his ability to pass a test on property, rights and law. On the other hand, A’s neighbor, B, who has not boned up on those issues, would be undeserving of any right to the teepee he constructed on the land he cleared.

Is that correct?

Not even close enough to merit an "almost". I'd suggest that you move from a simple-minded theory of undifferentiated brute labor, to something along the lines of "purposive labor".

[Gary Brenner]

You could try again, without confusing the concepts "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions.

I can hardly be accused of confusing the "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions for ownership in your theory of property rights since you’ve made no such distinctions in the conditions you’ve listed thus far: “Leave the world of the primitive; grasp the concept of ‘property’, ‘rights’, ‘society’ and ‘law’. Put down the frickin club, start relying on reason.”

I could make any number of attempts to delineate your position. Or you could remove all doubt by stating it yourself.

Not even close enough to merit an "almost". I'd suggest that you move from a simple-minded theory of undifferentiated brute labor, to something along the lines of "purposive labor".

So in addition to grasping “the concept of ‘property’, ‘rights’, ‘society’ and ‘law’,” A’s right to the teepee also depends on its construction being “purposive.” What objective means would we employ to determine whether a particular structure or improvement on a piece of land was the product of “purposive labor” or not?

[volco]

How does this relate to the -intended- privatization of government land, like the end of homeasted act ownership that imposed the federal government in Nevada?

IF someone grasping the concepts of law, society and rights, were to set up a purposeful productive endeavor in the federal desert, breaking an unfair law, would he be entitled to do it?

[DavidOdden]

What objective means would we employ to determine whether a particular structure or improvement on a piece of land was the product of “purposive labor” or not?

You still don't get it, but that doesn't matter to me. Anyhow, there are a number of ways, based on reason. If you had a specific context in mind that you don't understand, you could say what it is and I could explain.

[Gary Brenner]

You still don't get it, but that doesn't matter to me.

It's not for lack of trying. In Post #7, I asked who may rightfully lay claim to Primitive Man A's teepee and the land beneath it. In response, I was told people don’t gain a “property right just because they pitch a tent somewhere.”

So in Post #11, I asked, “What exactly must men do to establish rights in property?” The answer I received was, “Leave the world of the primitive; grasp the concept of ‘property’, ‘rights’, ‘society’ and ‘law’. Put down the frickin club, start relying on reason.”

Since no other qualifications were listed, I asked in Post #20, if it is “not A’s labor that earns him a right to property but his intellectual qualifications.” The answer I got was that I was “confusing the concepts ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ conditions,” even though all I had done was repeat the conditions that had been laid out for me.

Anyhow, there are a number of ways, based on reason. If you had a specific context in mind that you don't understand, you could say what it is and I could explain.

We can go back to my original example. If A has cleared some land and built a teepee on it, what do we look for to determine whether this particular undertaking has met the criterion of “purposive labor”?