Extracting resources from primitive countries

[KendallJ]

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.

That depends on how you read the characteristics, e.g. and necessary and sufficient. For example, I'm not convinced that the word predominantly has been shown to be false. It allows for exceptions of course. Just how much exception makes for the debate. But then when we base our inferences on Rand's mind on her extemporaneous answers that may address specifically or not the particular point of debate, that's he kind of analysis you'll get. Faulting Rand is hardly the path here. She was superb at Q&A not perfect. She had to delimit her answers to the questions involved, and such passages ought to be given some leeway, if they didn't address your particular beef.

The context of the response was to someone who used the term "genocide" of native american peoples, e.g. one of the mutli-culturalist views as I mentioned above. I'd probably leave out the nuances of exceptions just to drive home the force of my point too. Regardless of individual injustices, genocide is wholly inappropriate way to characterize this.

Edited April 9, 2008 by KendallJ

[DavidOdden]

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.

I don't see how this is relevant. Rand didn't claim to have any scholarly knowledge of Indians, so she's clearly as capable of factual error as she was about the morality of homosexuality. Her statement is valid for the Lakota, not the for Cherokee, so this whole nonsense about generic / collective "Indian property rights" is, as I said, nonsense. And none of them lie in the Niger Delta, if you would care to pay some attention to the original question.

[Gary Brenner]

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.

Since I do not know what the universe of claims against Europeans consists of, I have no way of ascertaining whether the number that are consistent with the truth is a majority or a minority of the total. What I do know from many hours of research into the matter is that tens of thousands of Indians were wrongfully dispossessed of their lives and/or property. To take just one example, the 1838 forced removal (in effect an “ethnic cleansing”) of the Cherokee (a non-nomadic nation of farms, shops, towns and laws) from their lands in Georgia to lands west of the Mississippi resulted in the deaths of approximately 4,000 Cherokees, perhaps one-fourth of their total population. (Today a much larger United States rightfully grieves over a smaller number of deaths on September 11, 2001.)

Thus for anyone to speak of there being “no reason for anyone to grant [indians] rights” while ignoring what was by the most conservative accounts a “sweeping rights abuse,” is to play fast and loose with history.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Gary Brenner

[Gary Brenner]

That depends on how you read the characteristics, e.g. and necessary and sufficient. For example, I'm not convinced that the word predominantly has been shown to be false. It allows for exceptions of course.

Then an accurate, non-contradictory statement would be, "Since MANY Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights -- they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"-- MANY of them didn't have rights to the land, and IN THOSE CASES THERE WOULD BE no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using."

Let me add that the Trail of Tears and other atrocities were hardly unknown to those who had picked up at least one volume of American history.

The context of the response was to someone who used the term "genocide" of native american peoples, e.g. one of the mutli-culturalist views as I mentioned above. I'd probably leave out the nuances of exceptions just to drive home the force of my point too. Regardless of individual injustices, genocide is wholly inappropriate way to characterize this.

Leaving out the biggest land grab in U.S. history and the homicide of thousands just makes one look ill-informed.

[Gary Brenner]

I don't see how this is relevant. Rand didn't claim to have any scholarly knowledge of Indians, so she's clearly as capable of factual error as she was about the morality of homosexuality.

Fine, then you and I don't need to debate this point further.

Her statement is valid for the Lakota, not the for Cherokee, so this whole nonsense about generic / collective "Indian property rights" is, as I said, nonsense.

Yes, but I'm unaware of anyone in this thread making the claim that all Indians had certain property rights in land.

And none of them lie in the Niger Delta, if you would care to pay some attention to the original question.

Granted. And I think your Post #2 under this topic was excellent.

[DavidOdden]

Yes, but I'm unaware of anyone in this thread making the claim that all Indians had certain property rights in land.

For the obvious reason that they don't.

[adrock3215]

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.

This is the funniest post I've read in a while. I think another good example would be: Does the United States own the moon because astronauts have placed an American flag on it?

[Maximus]

I think another good example would be: Does the United States own the moon because astronauts have placed an American flag on it?

Why not? It's ours, dammit!

[Gary Brenner]

This is the funniest post I've read in a while. I think another good example would be: Does the United States own the moon because astronauts have placed an American flag on it?

No, but the U.S. government owns (i.e. decrees sovereignty over) a large chunk of North America by much the same process

Edited April 10, 2008 by Gary Brenner

[Sewdo]

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.

To answer the first question: evidently, "yes." The answer to second question is, again, obviously, "yes" as well. However, that would depend on a distinct view of what constitutes moral behavior.

But the larger question of whether property rights actually exist remains, at least to me, unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable. I thought Gary's graphic was brilliant in the sense that one cannot, or better should not, demarcate the issue on whether a structure is permanent or not. After all, nothing is.

The Supreme Court ruled on the taking of the Black Hills by white settlers/the United States Government and found that "A more ripe and rank case of dishonest dealings may never be found in our history."

Lastly, I basically joined here because of the discussion of dietary fat and its association with heart disease. I found progressiveman's links to be quite informative.

I also enjoy Ayn Rand.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Sewdo

[KendallJ]

Leaving out the biggest land grab in U.S. history

Well that is begging the question isn't it.

And right before you said this.

Yes, but I'm unaware of anyone in this thread making the claim that all Indians had certain property rights in land.

I realize you'll wiggle here, but then we're already down to wordsmithing Rand's extemporaneously-made remarks. The hyperbole of the first statement certainly contradicts by the feigned ignorance of the 2nd. BU then the first was an argument from intimidation anyway.

Gary, after debating you on multiple threads I see the sort of "objectivist" you are. Once again, I'm happy to cease wasting my time. I'll stick around, simply to snipe you the way you are wont to do to others.

Edited April 17, 2008 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

Since I do not know what the universe of claims against Europeans consists of, I have no way of ascertaining whether the number that are consistent with the truth is a majority or a minority of the total. What I do know from many hours of research into the matter is that tens of thousands of Indians were wrongfully dispossessed of their lives and/or property. To take just one example, the 1838 forced removal (in effect an “ethnic cleansing”) of the Cherokee (a non-nomadic nation of farms, shops, towns and laws) from their lands in Georgia to lands west of the Mississippi resulted in the deaths of approximately 4,000 Cherokees, perhaps one-fourth of their total population. (Today a much larger United States rightfully grieves over a smaller number of deaths on September 11, 2001.)

Thus for anyone to speak of there being “no reason for anyone to grant [indians] rights” while ignoring what was by the most conservative accounts a “sweeping rights abuse,” is to play fast and loose with history.

If you do not know the extent of claims both against Europeans and against the Indians, then your second statement is pure appeal to authority. The correctness of Rand's statement turns not on the fact that there was an abuse here or there, but on the integrated whole, on the exact point you claim such deafening ignorance. Rand admittedly says in that Q&A she is wont to believe the preponderance of claims against Indians, and one could certainly claim that she hadn't done her homework. However, you've done no better, and certainly her principles still stand since you've done nothing to overturn those.

This is the same as your Iraq war stance, and your statement such as the "biggest land grab" statement betray your method. You've got a few isolated axes to grind, you make no better efforts to integrate them into the whole, but you'll not stop until you've sought satisfaction for the few you do have. The answer lies in integrating the whole. It lies in answering the question you surely claim ignorance to above.

Then an accurate, non-contradictory statement would be, "Since MANY Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights -- they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"-- MANY of them didn't have rights to the land, and IN THOSE CASES THERE WOULD BE no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using."

So do you agree with that position? Because if you do, the alleged "land grab" is far from the biggest in history, and the preponderance of Europeans were justified and right in their actions. No?

Edited April 17, 2008 by KendallJ

[Inspector]

Gary, after debating you on multiple threads I see the sort of "objectivist" you are.

I wasn't aware that Gary made any sort of claim on that monicker. In fact, I'm pretty sure he has out-and-out stated that he is not an Objectivist.

[KendallJ]

I wasn't aware that Gary made any sort of claim on that monicker. In fact, I'm pretty sure he has out-and-out stated that he is not an Objectivist.

It's why I put it in quotes. He's shown enough sympathy for Rand's ideas in other threads to seemingly warrant not having his discussions placed in the debate forum, but I'm beginning to question that sort of treatment.

[Sewdo]

While Gary's "stance" may offer clues into his motive, it hardly tells us whether or not he is correct in his opinion on this subject. I only just joined, but that seems rather ad hominem to me. And, if I am not incorrect, this subject is subsumed by the larger question I mentioned, i.e. from what authority are "property rights" issued.

Can they exist? And, if so, by what moral right?

I'd be interested in hearing from someone on this.

[KendallJ]

While Gary's "stance" may offer clues into his motive, it hardly tells us whether or not he is correct in his opinion on this subject. I only just joined, but that seems rather ad hominem to me. And, if I am not incorrect, this subject is subsumed by the larger question I mentioned, i.e. from what authority are "property rights" issued.

Can they exist? And, if so, by what moral right?

I'd be interested in hearing from someone on this.

Hi Swedo, nice to have you. You are correct, this might seem slightly ad hominem to someone who just joined. Would it make a difference if Gary had been around on mutliple threads and many of us had dealth with him on literally hundreds of reponses, and as such had built up a bit more evidence? The fact that I said that I'm "beginning to question" reflects an awful lot of rope already given. If you'd like to evaluate that claim I can point you to some really nice long threads that would take up a fair amount of your time to evaluate.

In addition, ad hominem is the replacement of argumentation with insults. If you'll notice, I provide quite a bit of valid argumentation in the thread. This is just an expression of mild annoyance and a bit of insult, in addition. As such, it might border on rude, but it is not ad hominem. Gary and I have been tussling for a while now. Allow me to express a little exasperation please.

As to your other question, individual rights are not granted, but rather recognized. My understanding however is that property is slightly different since without a concept of property, one does not own anything to begin with. I addressed this much earlier in the thread with some relevant quotes from Rand here.

[Tom K.]

Going back to an earlier question (at the risk of sticking my head into the lion's mouth here) about what it takes for a group to have property rights, I'd suspect it boils down to two things: Do they understand the concept of property? If so, what form does that understanding take?

For example, we're primarily discussing land ownership. If the culture doesn't understand the concept of property, then they do not actually own anything. It is simply an object they use, and is possibly used others as well. However, if they do understand property, it's possible that they see their tent as property. They may see their spear as property. They may not necessarily see the land beneath them as property, even if they live in established towns in permenant structures.

For them to have property rights in relation to the land, they would have to understand that the land can be owned by people. This is a concept that some primitive groups don't always understand, and would have bearing on whether or not they have property rights.

At least, that's my take on it.

[DavidOdden]

Going back to an earlier question (at the risk of sticking my head into the lion's mouth here) about what it takes for a group to have property rights, I'd suspect it boils down to two things: Do they understand the concept of property? If so, what form does that understanding take?

I wanna rewrite your sentence, because there are two parts in need of revision. First, a person has property rights to a thing if the thing is his property, and that's all there is to that. Second, talk of a group having property rights is dangerous (though not necessarily fatal) if it isn't based on a clear recognition of the fundamental truth of rights, that individuals have rights. A nunch of us can agree to a joint-ownership venture, but that's kinda complicated.

If the culture doesn't understand the concept of property, then they do not actually own anything.

I can't be held responsible for the idiocy of my neighbors in this way. Even though those around me are slobbering primitive collectivists who believe that The Great Spirit gave all of the land to The Tribe As A Collective to share selflessly, I do hereby stake out and claim as my own land this plot of 20 acres, on which I claim the exclusive right to hunt, fish, log, pick berries and plant corn. I own this land, it is my property. I do understand though that the slobbering masses may not recognise my rights. Still, I have posted No Trespassing signs and given ample evidence that I have claimed this specific chunk of land for my own. Thus my rights are not contingent on the culture, but the recognition of the rights may be.

However, if they do understand property, it's possible that they see their tent as property. They may see their spear as property. They may not necessarily see the land beneath them as property, even if they live in established towns in permenant structures.

And this is a real distinction, that especially with nomads, individuals may have clear culturally-recognised ownership of portable objects, but not of land. An intermediate concept is non-universal use rights without ownership -- some people have the recognized right to use a particular chunk of land, but nobody actually owns it. Successful herding nomads seem to have some concept along these lines, which depends on adherence to a nebulous gentlemen's agreement type of tradition rather that any notion of right. Those systems break down what something new happens, and some strange new tribe from the south encroaches into the area.

[Tom K.]

I wanna rewrite your sentence, because there are two parts in need of revision. First, a person has property rights to a thing if the thing is his property, and that's all there is to that. Second, talk of a group having property rights is dangerous (though not necessarily fatal) if it isn't based on a clear recognition of the fundamental truth of rights, that individuals have rights. A nunch of us can agree to a joint-ownership venture, but that's kinda complicated.

You're correct on both of your points here. I was definitely less than clear here. As for a group having property rights, what I meant was individuals within the group, versus the whole group necessarily (joint property withstanding).

I can't be held responsible for the idiocy of my neighbors in this way. Even though those around me are slobbering primitive collectivists who believe that The Great Spirit gave all of the land to The Tribe As A Collective to share selflessly, I do hereby stake out and claim as my own land this plot of 20 acres, on which I claim the exclusive right to hunt, fish, log, pick berries and plant corn. I own this land, it is my property. I do understand though that the slobbering masses may not recognise my rights. Still, I have posted No Trespassing signs and given ample evidence that I have claimed this specific chunk of land for my own. Thus my rights are not contingent on the culture, but the recognition of the rights may be.

I see your point here. Of course, if you were part of that culture, it would be doubtful that you would understand the idea of property either, but in the hypothetical situation, let's say you originate the idea of property within the culture. Recognition of a right is not a requirement for the right to exist. The right would have to be denied to you by force, just as if it were any other right being denied to you. Point taken.

And this is a real distinction, that especially with nomads, individuals may have clear culturally-recognised ownership of portable objects, but not of land. An intermediate concept is non-universal use rights without ownership -- some people have the recognized right to use a particular chunk of land, but nobody actually owns it. Successful herding nomads seem to have some concept along these lines, which depends on adherence to a nebulous gentlemen's agreement type of tradition rather that any notion of right. Those systems break down what something new happens, and some strange new tribe from the south encroaches into the area.

My point exactly with regards to limited property rights. Many people understand the concept of ownership over items, but not land. As for non-universal use rights, that seems like territorial rights where it is understood that this is for Tribe A's use only, rather than anyone can use. In both instances, should a new tribe encroach, this is usually grounds warfare, correct? I'm just trying to make sure I have a grasp on what you're talking about here.

[Publius]

I can't be held responsible for the idiocy of my neighbors in this way. Even though those around me are slobbering primitive collectivists who believe that The Great Spirit gave all of the land to The Tribe As A Collective to share selflessly, I do hereby stake out and claim as my own land this plot of 20 acres, on which I claim the exclusive right to hunt, fish, log, pick berries and plant corn. I own this land, it is my property. I do understand though that the slobbering masses may not recognise my rights.

Your position seems to be that regardless of how the land is used, how much of it is physically occupied, no person can make any claim to land without the prerequisite concept of individual property rights, and certainly all land claims based on collectivism are invalid. Hence, someone such as yourself who comes along, a person who properly recognizes such a concept, and makes a claim on the same land, is morally justified in taking it? I am not clear as to whether you would take into account how the land is used, or how much of it is occupied. If the less-evolved thinkers use the land in ways that resemble in some important aspects how modern property rights respecting peoples would, you would pay it no heed?

To gobble up and fence off a tribe's territory because they didn't "think" of it the right away strikes me as wrong, especially if they demonstrated occupancy and improvement of the land. As I stated earlier, negotiating with said primitives would be the most moral course to me in such a case, exchanging something of value for the land, provided they were in fact using or occupying the land on a permanent/regular basis. Can there be no de facto recognition of property rights based on certain circumstances?

[KendallJ]

Your position seems to be that regardless of how the land is used, how much of it is physically occupied, no person can make any claim to land without the prerequisite concept of individual property rights, and certainly all land claims based on collectivism are invalid. Hence, someone such as yourself who comes along, a person who properly recognizes such a concept, and makes a claim on the same land, is morally justified in taking it? I am not clear as to whether you would take into account how the land is used, or how much of it is occupied. If the less-evolved thinkers use the land in ways that resemble in some important aspects how modern property rights respecting peoples would, you would pay it no heed?

Neither David or I are claiming that it matters not how you use the land. If you use it in ways that "resemble important aspects" of ownership, that is ownership. That is, use in that manner would indicate the concept is formed. The debate is what constitutes empirical uses taken as a whole that would inidicate this. Improvements, individual tract demarcation (as opposed to territorial boundaries), etc. I think one of the most important aspects is trade in land.

To gobble up and fence off a tribe's territory because they didn't "think" of it the right away strikes me as wrong, especially if they demonstrated occupancy and improvement of the land. As I stated earlier, negotiating with said primitives would be the most moral course to me in such a case, exchanging something of value for the land, provided they were in fact using or occupying the land on a permanent/regular basis. Can there be no de facto recognition of property rights based on certain circumstances?

The first sentence there begs the question. You're using the possesive already before establishing what is owned and why. The question is, why does it strike you as owned? To me territories represent "buffer zones" between tribes or groups rather than tracts that are improved. That is, they extend with no improvement or development usually until one "bumps into" a conflicting group. David had a post about that concept.

Edited April 18, 2008 by KendallJ

[DavidOdden]

Hence, someone such as yourself who comes along, a person who properly recognizes such a concept, and makes a claim on the same land, is morally justified in taking it?

No, that is not what I'm claiming. For instance, if a bunch of Palestinians invades a kibbutz (a commune said to be owned by the community) and "claims" the land as unowned, that is unjustified. If a gang of wandering Huns happen to bed down by a river in the wilds for a couple of nights, that doesn't constitute a claim of ownership. I am claiming, simply, that certain land is / was, plain and simple, unowned. Vague notions of being "used" or "occupied" are useless when determining if land is owned -- when you're on a camping trip, you are using the land as you walk across it, and by being there the land is "occupied", just like with an outhouse. Mere presence does not constitute ownership. Let's see the actual proof of ownership, if you want to get into disputes about who owns what.

If the less-evolved thinkers use the land in ways that resemble in some important aspects how modern property rights respecting peoples would, you would pay it no heed?

I've made it quite clear that I would pay heed to actual evidence of ownership.

To gobble up and fence off a tribe's territory because they didn't "think" of it the right away strikes me as wrong, especially if they demonstrated occupancy and improvement of the land.

If pigs had wings, they would be eagles. Mere physical presence is a triviality; building is not. Pitching tents is not building houses. Do you have something specific in mind, when you imply that there were some tribes that "demonstrated occupancy" and "improved the land"? Picking berries or crapping in the woods is not "improving the land". Planting an acre of corn is evidence of improving that acre. What has no credibility is an empty claim that "The Creator gave us all of the land for ourselves". Equally empty is the claim that "The Indians, as a generic gang, owned the land, all of it".

As I stated earlier, negotiating with said primitives would be the most moral course to me in such a case, exchanging something of value for the land, provided they were in fact using or occupying the land on a permanent/regular basis.

That would be true, if you were dealing with people who did have a concept of property and ownership, who would then respect a trade. You have to make that determination on the basis of fact: when a tribe simply does not respect land trades, then dealing with them by reason is impossible.

[Sewdo]

Hi Swedo, nice to have you. You are correct, this might seem slightly ad hominem to someone who just joined. Would it make a difference if Gary had been around on mutliple threads and many of us had dealth with him on literally hundreds of reponses, and as such had built up a bit more evidence? The fact that I said that I'm "beginning to question" reflects an awful lot of rope already given. If you'd like to evaluate that claim I can point you to some really nice long threads that would take up a fair amount of your time to evaluate.

Hi Kendall, nice to be had.

I got that, clearly. As I said I have only just arrived here, but the dynamic was quite evident in his responses as well as yours. There are objectivists and "objectivists." I am sure what I witnessed was just the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, I felt he had the better argument-sans hyperbole. For the record, his statement "land grab" is an oft-tossed about catch-phrase in discussions of this sort. The Internet is replete with examples.

In addition, ad hominem is the replacement of argumentation with insults. If you'll notice, I provide quite a bit of valid argumentation in the thread. This is just an expression of mild annoyance and a bit of insult, in addition. As such, it might border on rude, but it is not ad hominem. Gary and I have been tussling for a while now. Allow me to express a little exasperation please.

The only reason I mentioned it, as I had already read the entire thread which included your substantive argumentation, was because it seemed out of place with the rest of your posts, which were appeals to reason and rational thinking. Pardon me for saying so, but, even when comingled to the slightest degree, they stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb. And I must add that I have never ran across the idea that ad homs were a complete replacement for logical argumentation, just that they could be, and most often are, comingled with other facets of argument. I have read plenty of peer-reviewed journals that written by snotty and ill-tempered professionals who acted like little children. For that record, that certainly wasn't you.

As to your other question, individual rights are not granted, but rather recognized. My understanding however is that property is slightly different since without a concept of property, one does not own anything to begin with. I addressed this much earlier in the thread with some relevant quotes from Rand here.

I appreciate the fine distinction. While the State may confer legal deed or title to a piece of personal property, and in that way may be misunderstood to be granting a title, which isn't ownership, it is actually recognizing the right of the individual, or group of individuals, for ownership of that piece of property. I am specifically speaking of a thing as property, not just land.

[Sewdo]

No, that is not what I'm claiming. For instance, if a bunch of Palestinians invades a kibbutz (a commune said to be owned by the community) and "claims" the land as unowned, that is unjustified. If a gang of wandering Huns happen to bed down by a river in the wilds for a couple of nights, that doesn't constitute a claim of ownership. I am claiming, simply, that certain land is / was, plain and simple, unowned. Vague notions of being "used" or "occupied" are useless when determining if land is owned -- when you're on a camping trip, you are using the land as you walk across it, and by being there the land is "occupied", just like with an outhouse. Mere presence does not constitute ownership.

By what standard? I am following on this and it makes sense until claims are made about what actually constitutes "actual" ownership versus "imaginary" (for lack of a better term) ownership. A person, or group, uses an area to hunt or fish. It is, in their mind, their fishing hole, hunting ground, what-have-you. If another person or group tries to use it, they are met with swift and even violent opposition. I wouldn' t call that ownership in the normally accepted way, but on the other hand, why not?

Let's see the actual proof of ownership, if you want to get into disputes about who owns what.I've made it quite clear that I would pay heed to actual evidence of ownership.

And that would be? Building a permanent structure? That seems a bit arbitrary to me.

Mere physical presence is a triviality; building is not.

Walking through the woods or fields or sailing a ship certainly does not seem to convey ownership. But if that section is a peninsula or an isthmus or what-have-you, could it be construed as being owned? I submit that it can if it were the primary avenue by which a certain individual or group could relocate to their "winter lodging." Kinda like a "toll road."

Pitching tents is not building houses.

In reference to ownership, also seems to be an arbitrary distinction created by cultural bias.

Picking berries or crapping in the woods is not "improving the land".

Either usage may, in the mind of the user, include certain rights, which could be their conception of "property rights." What if a group of people used that area for picking berries for 20,000 years? And fought with other groups who tried to pick there?

Planting an acre of corn is evidence of improving that acre.

Which, also, seems to be just another arbitrary distinction.

What has no credibility is an empty claim that "The Creator gave us all of the land for ourselves".

Why is that an empty claim? Would an equally empty claim be "manifest destiny"?

Equally empty is the claim that "The Indians, as a generic gang, owned the land, all of it".

I do not think that third parties, in that way can make such statements without sounding absurd.

That would be true, if you were dealing with people who did have a concept of property and ownership, who would then respect a trade.

Whose concept of property and ownership? Theirs or ours or both of ours?

You have to make that determination on the basis of fact: when a tribe simply does not respect land trades, then dealing with them by reason is impossible.

So then the moral thing to do is to kill them or deprive them of the use of certain lands because their definition disagrees with ours? (Rhetorical question)

[DavidOdden]

By what standard?

Well, it ought to be an objectively specified standard expressed in law. The problem this thread has devolved to is, how can men introduce reason into anarchic dystopia; how should one follow objective, rational standards when they don't exist? You analyze the concept of "property" and see if it applies to a given instance. The essential fact about "property" is that every man has the right to the product of his mind and his labor, so you see if that criterion is applicable. Real estate is harder to judge, compared to clay pots, since clay pots are pretty clearly manufactured by man, whereas if a man is present in some place on Earth, you don't know if he has created a tract of land. But you can look for evidence, and that's what you should do -- stakes, fences, clearing the bush in preparation for planting crops.

Walking through the woods or fields or sailing a ship certainly does not seem to convey ownership. But if that section is a peninsula or an isthmus or what-have-you, could it be construed as being owned?

I don't see how there is any difference between walking through the broad open plains and walking across an isthmus or up a canyon makes a difference. Ownership is not conferred by the shape of a geographical feature. It arises from what you do with the land. For example, as I say, building a house on it, digging a well to be your water supply.

What if a group of people used that area for picking berries for 20,000 years? And fought with other groups who tried to pick there?

It's a pity that they never got a grasp of the idea of living in a civilized society with some notion of property rights and objective laws, whereby this mythical epic struggle of their could be simplified. Instead, their species (Neanderthal) died out. That's what you're talking about.

So then the moral thing to do is to kill them or deprive them of the use of certain lands because their definition disagrees with ours?

No, the moral thing to do is to recognise the value of a thng, and kep that value. See the potential of a tract of land, make it actually be a tract of land, and then work to keep that land. If there is actually a competing claim of land ownership, that would be resolved in a court of law. So the killing part only arises when the savage is outraged that a new tribe moved into the area with a better idea, and laid claim to the previously unclaimed land. They try to murder the owners, who naturally defend themselves, and end up getting their heads blown off. All because they refuse to deal with people by reason, and instead resort to force as their means of existence.