Extracting resources from primitive countries

[DavidOdden]

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”?

Some sign that he intends to keep this specific, well-delimited piece of land for the long-haul. What did he do after the teepee was removed?

[Gary Brenner]

Some sign that he intends to keep this specific, well-delimited piece of land for the long-haul.

So "purposive" means intended for the long-haul? Can there no short-term purposive labor, such as catching fish or planting squash and sunflowers (plants that were domesticated by Native Americans about 4,000 years ago)?

What did he do after the teepee was removed?

If he couldn't catch the scoundrel who removed it, perhaps he built another. Seriously, though, not all pre-Columbian Americans were nomads. The Apalachee Indian town of Anhaica in what is now Tallahassee, Florida had a year-round population of approximately 30,000.

[DavidOdden]

Seriously, though, not all pre-Columbian Americans were nomads. The Apalachee Indian town of Anhaica in what is now Tallahassee, Florida had a year-round population of approximately 30,000.

No doubt, and what do we learn from this? The Makua are matrilineal -- isn't that also an interesting fact?

[Moebius]

I share Gary's confusion regarding the exact principles involved in claiming a land as your own. Assuming that one understands the concept of property rights, how then does he proceed to claim a piece of land as his own? How do you arrive at "intention to do labor", "intention to do purposive labor", or "intention to do purposive labor over the long haul" as the criteria for land ownership?

As far as I can tell, the only historical criteria for claiming virgin lands has been FORCE. You own a piece of land if you can exercise enough force to keep others out. Virtually all "civilized" people acquired their initial lands this way.

[DavidOdden]

I share Gary's confusion regarding the exact principles involved in claiming a land as your own.

I don't think that's Gary's confusion, or maybe it is and he hasn't figured out how to articulate it. Basically the idea is that you have to create the thing that you claim as property, which you can do by e.g. clearing the brush or fencing it. Then there is the aspect of registering the claim in a social context, which comes down to publically announcing this fact. The fence is a traditional way, of course having a legal description and a deed on file is convenient.

[Gary Brenner]

I don't think that's Gary's confusion, or maybe it is and he hasn't figured out how to articulate it.

What I haven’t figured out how to articulate is your theory of how property is rightfully acquired. First, it appeared that anyone “may claim and used land that happens to have been used by primitives who don't own the land.”

Then we learned that it could not be just anyone but one who had left “the world of the primitive” and grasped “the concept of ‘property’, ‘rights’, ‘society’ and ‘law’,” in addition to putting down the “frickin club.”

Then it became someone who (perhaps in addition to the above -- or perhaps not since we weren’t specifically told) engaged in “purposive labor,” which has not been precisely defined but appears to be related only to “long-haul” intentions.

Basically the idea is that you have to create the thing that you claim as property, which you can do by e.g. clearing the brush or fencing it.

Done. As I have already said, our teepee builder, Mr. A, cleared the land himself and by the sweat of his brow acquired the teepee parts and assembled them into a dwelling.

Then there is the aspect of registering the claim in a social context, which comes down to publically announcing this fact. The fence is a traditional way, of course having a legal description and a deed on file is convenient.

Mr. A has in effect registered his claim by having his dwelling and plot recognized by the other members of his tribe. Individual and family plots were acknowledged by many Native American tribes. For example, Daryll Forde has written that Hopi lands were marked by “numerous boundary stones . . . placed at the corners and junctions points” and “engraved on their face with symbols of the appropriate clan.” (Quoted in Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill, The Not So Wild, Wild West)

[DavidOdden]

Done. As I have already said, our teepee builder, Mr. A, cleared the land himself and by the sweat of his brow acquired the teepee parts and assembled them into a dwelling.

Forget the acquisition of the teepee parts. You know very well the question is about land and not teepees. There is no question that he owns the teepee. The question is whether he owns the land. Not apparently. I own my ass; if I put my ass on a mountain when I'm out hiking, that doesn't constitute a valid claim of possession of the mountain. And I have no in effect registered my claim by putting my ass on the ground, nor does it matter if I'm out with my band of merry men on a fun camping trip and they all declare "He put his ass on the mountain -- he owns the mountain".

I'll try to give you a clue. Here is a photo of a permanent Indian-built structure. Given the physical structure of the structures, it's clear that a permanent claim has been made for possessing the land (there's lots of other stuff like shell middens that show this). So these guys own the land. These guys are out camping, as is this guy. This is not evidence of land ownership.

[Gary Brenner]

Forget the acquisition of the teepee parts. You know very well the question is about land and not teepees. There is no question that he owns the teepee.

There may well be a question if the teepee consists of hides taken without consent from another man’s herd and poles from another man’s trees.

The question is whether he owns the land. Not apparently. I own my ass; if I put my ass on a mountain when I'm out hiking, that doesn't constitute a valid claim of possession of the mountain. And I have no in effect registered my claim by putting my ass on the ground, nor does it matter if I'm out with my band of merry men on a fun camping trip and they all declare "He put his ass on the mountain -- he owns the mountain".

No, because you have not yet followed your own advice from Post #30: “e.g. clearing the brush or fencing it.”

I'll try to give you a clue. Here is a photo of a permanent Indian-built structure. Given the physical structure of the structures, it's clear that a permanent claim has been made for possessing the land (there's lots of other stuff like shell middens that show this). So these guys own the land. These guys are out camping, as is this guy. This is not evidence of land ownership.

Great. So the claim is valid so long as the structure on the land is “permanent” (Handiest definition: “Lasting or remaining without essential change. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place”).

Here is a photo of a temporary structure:

It is Louis Sullivan’s Transportation Building at the Columbian Exhibition of 1893 in Chicago. It was demolished after a year, as was intended.

Here is a photo of permanent structures:

They provide lodging to guests at Potter’s Ranch in Union, Kentucky.

[Moebius]

I don't think that's Gary's confusion, or maybe it is and he hasn't figured out how to articulate it. Basically the idea is that you have to create the thing that you claim as property, which you can do by e.g. clearing the brush or fencing it. Then there is the aspect of registering the claim in a social context, which comes down to publically announcing this fact. The fence is a traditional way, of course having a legal description and a deed on file is convenient.

So in essence I can just walk onto a plot of land that a tribal people has been relying on for subsistence for a few thousand years, fence it off and post a sign, and effectively own it? Or to put it another way, can I simply fence up say, Antarctica, open a press conference, and thereby claim the continent as mine?

[Publius]

One thing to mention is that Native American peoples did recognize the territory of other tribes, so somehow this idea of land ownership was understood amongst each other without a written deed as such.

"Primitive" peoples such as the Mayans had many fascinating innovations and achievements without ever demarcating plots of land to individual owners. Seems this should count for something. If you refuse to accept their less evolved cultural interpretation of property, then they can be stripped of their access to the land, more importantly, their means of survival?

[DavidOdden]

One thing to mention is that Native American peoples did recognize the territory of other tribes, so somehow this idea of land ownership was understood amongst each other without a written deed as such.

There is a huge difference between people recognizing for strategic purposes that they shouldn't venture past the big rock where the river turns towards the sun because they'll get bashed if they do, and an actual concept of property as applied to land. Land is something that can be bought and sold, and if you can't grasp that fact, then indeed you don't grasp it.

[KendallJ]

There is a huge difference between people recognizing for strategic purposes that they shouldn't venture past the big rock where the river turns towards the sun because they'll get bashed if they do, and an actual concept of property as applied to land. Land is something that can be bought and sold, and if you can't grasp that fact, then indeed you don't grasp it.

Would you consider the first concept something more along the lines of "territorial"?

[DavidOdden]

Would you consider the first concept something more along the lines of "territorial"?

Yes, as typified by Lake Chaubunagungamaug, meaning "You fish on your side, we fish on our side, nobody fishes in the middle".

[KendallJ]

Yes, as typified by Lake Chaubunagungamaug, meaning "You fish on your side, we fish on our side, nobody fishes in the middle".

Just in case anyone else had to Wiki Dave's reference...

The name comes from the language of the local Nipmuck people and means something close to "fishing place at the boundary". The lake was an important fishing spot on the borders of several tribal territories and lay at the nexus of many local paths of the Great Trail system. For these reasons the lake was often used as a meeting place.

[KendallJ]

So in essence I can just walk onto a plot of land that a tribal people has been relying on for subsistence for a few thousand years, fence it off and post a sign, and effectively own it?

This question has a standard already embedded in it. Does this idea bother you?

"plot" implies some standard of demarcation already so I'd ask what you mean by it. IF you mean a patch of land on which a tribal people has grown corn on for centuries, then I'd think this would be a valid claim. If you mean 1,000 square miles across which a nomadic people moves, taking up little space temporarily in various spots, and harvesting things which simply wildly live on the land be they plant or animal, then I'd say, that is an invalid claim.

The question really goes to what constitues a valid claim to property amonst a people who have no concept of it.

Did they work the land?

Did they buy and sell it?

Did the conceive of the land as owned?

Did they think of it individually or collectively (which might indicate a more territorial approach)?

If you think about it, harvesting from broad tracts (if that is your standard) gives very broad claims to someone who has done little to the land itself.

Remember we're talking about the establishment of hte concept of property. All this changes somewhat once the concept is established. If you buy a parcel of land and want to leave it fallow (or build temporary structures on it) that's your business, but the system and framework are already established.

I think while my understanding about what Rand had to say about the establishment of property rights is limited, she was pretty clear that you can't empirically take an example from within a society that has them established and say that because that exists, then a valid claim, by someone who doesn't recognize property rights to establish them is simply that usage of the land. I think that is the fallacy that is being committed here.

"I own a plot of land. I subsist off of it. Therefore someone who subists off land has a valid claim to new land."

"I own a plot of land. I erect a temporary structure on it. Therefore someone who erects temporary structures has a claim to new land."

My particular view is that usage doesn't go to historical precedent. I can own land and leave it fallow, but leaving land fallow doens't give me a claim to new land. I think the strongest case for an existing claim is the extent to which it was treated, as property. Was it bought or sold, demarcated, owned individually, etc. All other claims, based upon use are weaker. But if we line those up, and look at their strength, some of the things off the top of my head that might be cause to consider.

specificity of the plot - demarcation of the plot

long term usage of the plot

working the land vs. simply harvesting nature

No where would I consider need as criteria.

I'm curious to those who are taking position against this type of view. What exactly do you think constitutes a valid claim to land? Do you think the native americans could have claimed the entirety of the US as theirs based upon the fact that they "roamed" it?

Edited April 9, 2008 by KendallJ

[Gary Brenner]

The question really goes to what constitues a valid claim to property amonst a people who have no concept of it.

Did they work the land?

Did they buy and sell it?

Did the conceive of the land as owned?

Did they think of it individually or collectively (which might indicate a more territorial approach)?

The first point I understand. In his Second Treatise On Government, Locke wrote, “Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a ‘property’ in his own ‘person.’ This nobody has any right to but himself. The ‘labour’ of his body and the ‘work’ of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”

But why is buying and selling a necessary or a sufficient condition for ownership? First of all, a stolen good could be bought and sold after its theft from the rightful owner. More importantly, if buying and selling is a necessary condition for ownership, then we would have to declare that anything that has not yet been sold is not legitimately owned. I have not sold my brain; therefore, I do not own it. Jones has not yet sold his patent on Invention Q; therefore, Jones does not own Q.

I am also troubled by the intellectual qualification for ownership: “Did they think of it individually or collectively.” I have known people who in theory reject the very idea of individual ownership of land (they include Marxists, Georgists and even a follower of Herbert Spencer) yet have held deeds to land for pragmatic reasons. Now if we are prepared to deny land ownership to Native Americans because they did not think of it the right way, we would also have to deny ownership to anyone else, past and present, who could not pass our theory test. And why should intellectual qualifications be confined to real estate ownership? If a wage earner did not have the right concept of his paycheck, would somebody be justified in taking it away from him?

Edited April 9, 2008 by Gary Brenner

[Maximus]

Many Native People were removed and deprived of thier property by goverment edict. The Indian Revoval Act of 1830, which was controversial even in it's day, removed the majority of indian people West of the Missisippi, many of whom owned, legally, the property they lived on.

My wife and I are both Cherokee (T'salgi) decendants whose ansestors were forced off thier property by the coercive use of government force.

So, it is painting with a broad brush to assume that Native people roamed across the country, harvesting from nature. The Cherokee had a written language, newspapers, buisinesses; all of which were taken due to land greed. I would submit thier prior claim to thier land was legitimate.

[KendallJ]

So, it is painting with a broad brush to assume that Native people roamed across the country, harvesting from nature. The Cherokee had a written language, newspapers, buisinesses; all of which were taken due to land greed. I would submit thier prior claim to thier land was legitimate.

Where in anything I've said have I justified all the specific actions of specific entities? Please. I am speaking in principle, therefore, all my statements could be taken to mean "In the case where". If a particular case doesn't apply then I'm not addressing it. It is you who are painting with a broad brush. I made no assertions about the pre existing state of all native peoples in general.

Clearly, where someone is given a legal claim within a system of property rights and then has that claim revoked by force, that is wrong.

Gary, you took a few rhetorical questions and assumed they were arguments. They are not. They are rhetorical question. Please deal with what I argued for. You're arguing back at me as if I meant that these were specific criteria.

How about you present your own thoughts on the topic? The sniping gets old really fast.

[Gary Brenner]

Gary, you took a few rhetorical questions and assumed they were arguments. They are not. They are rhetorical question. Please deal with what I argued for. You're arguing back at me as if I meant that these were specific criteria.

If they are not criteria for ownership, great. Glad you cleared that up.

How about you present your own thoughts on the topic? The sniping gets old really fast.

I have already said: "The first point I understand": "Did they work the land?"

[Maximus]

Where in anything I've said have I justified all the specific actions of specific entities?

I wasn't referring to your post in particular, simply pointing out that Native people were not unaware of private property.

[Publius]

This question has a standard already embedded in it. Does this idea bother you?

"plot" implies some standard of demarcation already so I'd ask what you mean by it. IF you mean a patch of land on which a tribal people has grown corn on for centuries, then I'd think this would be a valid claim. If you mean 1,000 square miles across which a nomadic people moves, taking up little space temporarily in various spots, and harvesting things which simply wildly live on the land be they plant or animal, then I'd say, that is an invalid claim.

The question really goes to what constitues a valid claim to property amonst a people who have no concept of it.

Did they work the land?

Did they buy and sell it?

Did the conceive of the land as owned?

Did they think of it individually or collectively (which might indicate a more territorial approach)?

If you think about it, harvesting from broad tracts (if that is your standard) gives very broad claims to someone who has done little to the land itself.

Remember we're talking about the establishment of hte concept of property. All this changes somewhat once the concept is established. If you buy a parcel of land and want to leave it fallow (or build temporary structures on it) that's your business, but the system and framework are already established.

I think while my understanding about what Rand had to say about the establishment of property rights is limited, she was pretty clear that you can't empirically take an example from within a society that has them established and say that because that exists, then a valid claim, by someone who doesn't recognize property rights to establish them is simply that usage of the land. I think that is the fallacy that is being committed here.

"I own a plot of land. I subsist off of it. Therefore someone who subists off land has a valid claim to new land."

"I own a plot of land. I erect a temporary structure on it. Therefore someone who erects temporary structures has a claim to new land."

My particular view is that usage doesn't go to historical precedent. I can own land and leave it fallow, but leaving land fallow doens't give me a claim to new land. I think the strongest case for an existing claim is the extent to which it was treated, as property. Was it bought or sold, demarcated, owned individually, etc. All other claims, based upon use are weaker. But if we line those up, and look at their strength, some of the things off the top of my head that might be cause to consider.

specificity of the plot - demarcation of the plot

long term usage of the plot

working the land vs. simply harvesting nature

No where would I consider need as criteria.

I'm curious to those who are taking position against this type of view. What exactly do you think constitutes a valid claim to land? Do you think the native americans could have claimed the entirety of the US as theirs based upon the fact that they "roamed" it?

Since we're mostly on the subject of Native American peoples, I'm curious as to why you feel a significant percentage of them "roamed." Before Columbus the Americas were chock-full of people who lived in permanent locations, creating elaborate dwellings, working the land, and burying their dead in those locations with the implied thought that they considered the land more or less their permanent home. The rampant European diseases wiped out entire villages and tribes, probably reducing the population of the Americas by about 90 percent. This brought about complete civil disorder and chaos for most indigenous tribes, and gave Europeans the impression that all this open land was just there for the taking.

With such divergent ideas about what constituted ownership, the only equitable solution I can see is entering negotiations with the "primitives" and offering something of value in exchange for a piece of their land. There are examples of this being done. This does not mean negotiating with a rogue tribe of the Sioux nation, then declaring the land parcel has been bought and subsequently all other Sioux tribes need to vacate the land. The criteria for ownership would be roughly:

1) worked the land, such as planted crops, including physically making use of all portions of the territory. They couldn't just claim land they didn't physically occupy with some regularity

2) other indigenous peoples recognized their claim to the territory, documenting its authenticity

It would be up to the party with the more established concept of property rights to make these determinations for the most part. If the indigenous peoples made unwarranted claims on land, then others would have the right to take it by force.

[KendallJ]

Since we're mostly on the subject of Native American peoples, I'm curious as to why you feel a significant percentage of them "roamed."

I didn't say that. Please read the statement.

Based upon your discussion then, I am assuming that you would agree that the parcels that any particular tribe could have said to have owned, by your criteria, are quite small, relative to the entirely of the United States which is what I was addressing. That means the MAJORITY of the US was wild open territory free for the claiming.

[Gary Brenner]

I didn't say that. Please read the statement.

Based upon your discussion then, I am assuming that you would agree that the parcels that any particular tribe could have said to have owned, by your criteria, are quite small, relative to the entirely of the United States which is what I was addressing. That means the MAJORITY of the US was wild open territory free for the claiming.

It's worth noting that the position that some Indian land claims may have been legitimate stands in sharp contrast to Ayn Rand's position which appears to dismiss all such claims:

Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. (

Quoted from

Ayn Rand Answers

)

There are no nuances here, no allowance for the possibility that some Indians may have developed a system of individual or family land ownership based on work performed on it -- which is precisely what the Hopi and other tribes did.

[KendallJ]

It's worth noting that the position that some Indian land claims may have been legitimate stands in sharp contrast to Ayn Rand's position which appears to dismiss all such claims:

Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. (

Quoted from

Ayn Rand Answers

)

There are no nuances here, no allowance for the possibility that some Indians may have developed a system of individual or family land ownership based on work performed on it -- which is precisely what the Hopi and other tribes did.

Thanks goodness I don't speak for Objectivism. In fact, I read that passage differently. She is generalizing with the characteristics taht give rise to that generalization. That means that if one could show in actuallity a settled society, one might have a stronger claim.

That is her generlization appears to me to be the predominance of the characteristics she claims. If one were to point to an exception it still makes the MAJORITY of claims against Europeans invalid. I realize we're nitpicking here, but I don't view this boundary discussion as the real issue. The real enemy here is the multiculturalist who makes BROAD claims about lack of justification and sweeping rights abuses by the Europeans. The truth is more likely that there were some injustices against Indians, that some of the Indians behaved like savages and deserved retribution, and MOST of the settlement of the New World was perfectly valid and justified.

Edited April 9, 2008 by KendallJ

[Gary Brenner]

Thanks goodness I don't speak for Objectivism. In fact, I read that passage differently. She is generalizing with the characteristics taht give rise to that generalization. That means that if one could show in actuallity a settled society, one might have a stronger claim.

The generalization is either faulty or not. Several examples have been offered on this thread which, if verified, would prove the passage to be an inductive fallacy.