Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Extracting resources from primitive countries

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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?

Allright, I'm curious here. I'll entertain this sort of idea even though it points to subjectivism and relativism. I personally don' think there are two different ideas of property but lets go with that. Let's say for a minute that I grant this "multi-perspective" point of view. That one's idea of property is simply relative. This of course implies that all sorts of distinctions carry equal weight (their idea of rights, their idea of problem resolution, etc...) These are are simply cultural distinctions.

This leads to the question. If one way is not objectively better than another way, why is dealing with such peoples in their own "language" of concepts not proper. That is, if they've fought for tens of thousands of years over berry-land, and this is proper and right to them. Why don't I simply fight them for it?

The response I've heard back usually is that we're the more "civilized" set of ideas, but I would counter that that would be having your cake and eat it to, and it is used to restrict only in one directions. That is, when we want to give other's ideas validity we call it a "cultural" interpretation. When we want to limit our own behavior, i.e. to give our ideas elevated status, we call on ourselves to be civilized. It is essentially claiming objectively better in one instance, and objectively equal in the other.

Do you think that the concept of individual rights is also culturally relative?

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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;

I do not see it that way. First, the search for a root cause, or underlying principle, has not merely, as you put it, "devolved"; it is an attempt to understand, philosophically, how we arrive(d) at a principle. Pejorative labels may be persuasive in a rhetorical sense, yet they add nothing to the substantive points of the argument. Secondly, relying "an objectively specified standard expressed in law" is question begging.

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.

So far, so good. Nevertheless, the "creation" of a tract of land looks more and more like a figment of someone's imagination.

But you can look for evidence, and that's what you should do -- stakes, fences, clearing the bush in preparation for planting crops.

In those instances, you are not "creating" a tract of land, you are using it just as much as someone uses it for harvesting or specified paths or roads or turnpikes. When you erect a fence, you create a boundary. The boundary may be for containing game or whatnot. It may have nothing to do with the concept of ownership. Ranchers often thought they owned land without the erection of fence and allowed their livestock to "free range."

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.

Usage is...usage. What we are discussing is a demarcation conundrum. You draw the line at one place; I draw the line at another place. What I am trying to understand is why you are drawing the line where you do. To me, it seems arbitrary.

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.

I fail to see the objective standard you are erecting is anything other than an arbitrary demarcation that benefits those with different cultural concepts.

No, the moral thing to do is to recognise the value of a thng, and kep that value.

I agree. I also note that other cultures certainly recognized the value of a hunting ground or a harvesting area. So much so they "claimed" title to it in their own way.

See the potential of a tract of land, make it actually be a tract of land, and then work to keep that land.

The term 'tract', while weighted to skew the argument in favor of one culture, does nothing to resolve the issue.

If there is actually a competing claim of land ownership, that would be resolved in a court of law.

If this is true, then the court case adjudicated by SCOTUS, in favor of Native Americans with regard to the Black Hills amply proves my point(s).

I'll ask you again. Is the concept of "manifest destiny" an empty claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allright, I'm curious here. I'll entertain this sort of idea even though it points to subjectivism and relativism. I personally don' think there are two different ideas of property but lets go with that. Let's say for a minute that I grant this "multi-perspective" point of view. That one's idea of property is simply relative. This of course implies that all sorts of distinctions carry equal weight (their idea of rights, their idea of problem resolution, etc...) These are are simply cultural distinctions.

This leads to the question. If one way is not objectively better than another way, why is dealing with such peoples in their own "language" of concepts not proper. That is, if they've fought for tens of thousands of years over berry-land, and this is proper and right to them. Why don't I simply fight them for it?

A good question. And btw, if you wish to take this in the direction of subjectivism or relativism feel free, provided it brings us closer to an answer. I have no qualms or investment in any outcome of the discussion. In other words, I have no axe to grind; I am merely trying to learn and understand.

To answer that question directly, might does not make right. I own a car, but I wouldn't expect the bully next door to take it because we had a "throw down."

The response I've heard back usually is that we're the more "civilized" set of ideas, but I would counter that that would be having your cake and eat it to, and it is used to restrict only in one directions. That is, when we want to give other's ideas validity we call it a "cultural" interpretation. When we want to limit our own behavior, i.e. to give our ideas elevated status, we call on ourselves to be civilized. It is essentially claiming objectively better in one instance, and objectively equal in the other.

Brilliant, well, at least to my way of thinking. Well put.

Do you think that the concept of individual rights is also culturally relative?

They may be, however, they may also constitute a different class of moral standards where it is easier to apply objectivity. Specific instances should, perhaps, be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the search for a root cause, or underlying principle, has not merely, as you put it, "devolved"; it is an attempt to understand, philosophically, how we arrive(d) at a principle.
That may well be, but the discussion is now fully off topic. I assume you're read the original post; this has degenerated into yet another "civilised men are evil" thread.
Secondly, relying "an objectively specified standard expressed in law" is question begging.
On the contrary, there is no problem at all if you have a system of objectively stated and justified law. This discussion suffers from the usual failure of discussions of primitivism, namely the refusal to grasp and eliminate the contradiction. You cannot expect civilization when there is no civilization.
Nevertheless, the "creation" of a tract of land looks more and more like a figment of someone's imagination.
The figment of imagination is the situation where we hypothesize that some primitive mentally owns some land, but has not acted overtly and in an objectively-recognizable fashion to announce to others what he has in his mind. And yet we demand that civilized people be required to know what is in this man's head. That they know, somehow, that this primitive's property is here, but not there. I cannot imagine how anyone could do that, I suppose partly because I don't believe in mind-reading.
Ranchers often thought they owned land without the erection of fence and allowed their livestock to "free range."
I dunno. The only ranchers that I personally know actually do own the land (except when they clearly know that it's owned by USDA and they just use it). In the olden days, maybe they did have such confusion, but that's just as much a mistake as the claim that Indians own land because they have camped on it.
What I am trying to understand is why you are drawing the line where you do.
The line is drawn there to achieve objectivity. Ownership of land or anything else has to be objective, and not just based on a person's feelings. If you can show any ojective content to a person's claim of ownership, then you have a basis for resolving a dispute.
I also note that other cultures certainly recognized the value of a hunting ground or a harvesting area. So much so they "claimed" title to it in their own way.
Do you mean, a century later? Such post hoc claims are pretty much irrelevant to the "at that time" issue, when anarchy prevailed and civilization was first introduced.
If this is true, then the court case adjudicated by SCOTUS, in favor of Native Americans with regard to the Black Hills amply proves my point(s).
How? I don't understand the logic. Well, okay, if you were thinking that my position was that courts are infallible and that they always operated according to objective principles respecting rights, then you might think that SCOTUS decisions were absolutely dispositive of property rights questions. But Kelo, inter alios, has certainly put paid to that notion. Let me restate: if there are competing claims for ownership, then these claims can be resolved by inspection and evaluation of the evidence. You can't work backwards and say "Because the courts found X, the facts must be Y". You can, and often must, understand that the courts ignore rights and implement social policy.
Is the concept of "manifest destiny" an empty claim?
It's not even a claim. It's a semi-religious credo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may well be, but the discussion is now fully off topic. I assume you're read the original post; this has degenerated into yet another "civilised men are evil" thread.

The OP asked, "Are any rights involved in primitive societies?" To search for the underlying philosophical principles to guide and aid us is in the discussion cannot be off-topic provided this is a philosophic message board. I hope you don't think I am arguing the premise that "civilised men are evil." Such a concept is absurd, unless one admits that all men, by their very nature, are evil. That would be a subset of this discussion, but it is not its primary aim. To discuss that at any length would, properly, be off-topic.

Was the Spanish Inquistion an example of "civilised man"? (Rhetorical question.)

On the contrary, there is no problem at all if you have a system of objectively stated and justified law. This discussion suffers from the usual failure of discussions of primitivism, namely the refusal to grasp and eliminate the contradiction. You cannot expect civilization when there is no civilization.

Again, what one may call civilization may be only a cultural preference designed to give bias into what should be an objective discussion.

The figment of imagination is the situation where we hypothesize that some primitive mentally owns some land, but has not acted overtly and in an objectively-recognizable fashion to announce to others what he has in his mind.

If a primative thinks he has rights to a parcel of land, that will be preeminent in the way others act with him over it. Were wars started? Were negotiations held? Etc.

And yet we demand that civilized people be required to know what is in this man's head. That they know, somehow, that this primitive's property is here, but not there.

I don't require that. What I require is that we recognize that primatives thought they had rights to parcels of land, e.g. the specific area where they hunt etc.

The only ranchers that I personally know actually do own the land (except when they clearly know that it's owned by USDA and they just use it). In the olden days, maybe they did have such confusion, but that's just as much a mistake as the claim that Indians own land because they have camped on it.

Indeed. However, the fact that ranchers now "own" the land is precisely the point. Is their ownership derived from an objective moral standard recognized and entered into by all parties in the original agreement(s)? I think some instances would point to an affirmative answer while others would not.

The line is drawn there to achieve objectivity. Ownership of land or anything else has to be objective, and not just based on a person's feelings. If you can show any ojective content to a person's claim of ownership, then you have a basis for resolving a dispute.

When the "objectivity" is weighed and biased it is precisely unobjective, thereby negating the points it hopes to make.

Do you mean, a century later? Such post hoc claims are pretty much irrelevant to the "at that time" issue, when anarchy prevailed and civilization was first introduced.

No, I mean at the time. However, I challenge the notion that "anarchy prevailed" and the subsequent "civilization" are nothing but dissimilar cultural concepts within the groups themselves at the time of the original differences between them.

How? I don't understand the logic. Well, okay, if you were thinking that my position was that courts are infallible and that they always operated according to objective principles respecting rights, then you might think that SCOTUS decisions were absolutely dispositive of property rights questions. But Kelo, inter alios, has certainly put paid to that notion. Let me restate: if there are competing claims for ownership, then these claims can be resolved by inspection and evaluation of the evidence. You can't work backwards and say "Because the courts found X, the facts must be Y". You can, and often must, understand that the courts ignore rights and implement social policy.

The logic is straighforward. If the highest court in the land found that there were egregious offenses to the original owners of the land, it might well be that there were, in fact, offenses. The court evaluated and inspected the evidence and found that the rights, including property rights, of the Sioux were violated.

It's not even a claim. It's a semi-religious credo.

It is the progenitor of the claim, or "divine right," that initiated the original offences. Those claims, with that precursor, were empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, what one may call civilization may be only a cultural preference designed to give bias into what should be an objective discussion.
You have to be willing to admit that some people are, plain and simple, uncivilized. If you cling to the credo of the cultural relativists and say that all primitives are by definition civilized, then there's no basis for rational discussion.
If a primative thinks he has rights to a parcel of land, that will be preeminent in the way others act with him over it. Were wars started? Were negotiations held? Etc.
Huh. Interesting how you consider war and negotiation to be on an equal moral footing. The act of negotiating is obviously sufficient evidence to support one conclusion, and the act of aggression is evidence of something totally different.
What I require is that we recognize that primatives thought they had rights to parcels of land, e.g. the specific area where they hunt etc.
Why do we need to recognise that? First, as a matter of simple fact, this hasn't been established (such is the nature of floating abstractions), and even if it were true, is there any significance to recognizine this fact? I mean, we also need to recognize that the settlers owned the land. So equally well, we need to recognize that the settlers owned the land.
Indeed. However, the fact that ranchers now "own" the land is precisely the point. Is their ownership derived from an objective moral standard recognized and entered into by all parties in the original agreement(s)?
That's a very complicated historical question. There were various private sales, and in a lot of cases the parcel is rooted in the laws regulating the claiming of unowned land, such as the Homestead Act. Other routes included railroads acquiring land and then trading or selling it; USDA will unload land now and again which could be bought up by a lumber company or rancher. It doesn't really matter whether some guy had an unjust advantage in the initial acquisition as regulated by the government, because there's plenty of dirt in early land deals, and these details have no bearing on the modern world with today's ranchers. Remeber that the Indians stole all of their land from other Indians.
When the "objectivity" is weighed and biased it is precisely unobjective, thereby negating the points it hopes to make.
Since it isn't, your comment is irrelevant. Objective evidence is indeed objective. You are the one advocting giving credence to blatantly subjective claims, such as hypothesized states of mind of people dead for over a century.
The logic is straighforward. If the highest court in the land found that there were egregious offenses to the original owners of the land, it might well be that there were, in fact, offenses. The court evaluated and inspected the evidence and found that the rights, including property rights, of the Sioux were violated.
It also might well be that they have a leftist political agenda which was served by their decision. That is, in fact, the most likely explanation, since the courts have been in favor of social-agenda based devisions for over a half-century, and have abandoned the concept that "evidence" has any relevance to decisions. I take it that there is no particular piece of "evidence" that leads you to the conclusion that indeed the Sioux did have a well-defined property right to some chunk of unowned land?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Before the Zionist movement, Israel was inhabited by a primitive, 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 existence of Israel, but this is one question that I struggle to answer.

I just noticed this relatively unaddressed concern today.

Property rights in the special context of the The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very tricky issue to explore, largely because the conflict is very controversial, basic facts are often heatedly disputed and many invest a great deal of emotion in their support for one of the sides. Nevertheless, I can offer my perspective in hope that it might clarify the issue for you.

To start, I think the question: "Did Zionists have the right to [...] remove [the Palestinians] from their land?" is a bad question to ask since it is unintentionally (I assume) loaded with several presuppositions.

First, since you said "from their land", this question presupposes that the Palestinians owned the land as opposed to just nomadically inhabiting it. I disagree with this assumption as my understanding is that many of the previously Palestinians dwelling in the Levant before the large influxes of Jewish settlers did not have a correct concept of property rights, and thus, would not have properly established ownership for the reasons discussed earlier in this thread with relevance to native americans.

Second, since you said remove, which insinuates that Jewish settlers forceably removed the Palestinian nomads from the region. However, I perceive this too to be very inaccurate. It is my understanding that many of the Jews who arrived in what eventually became the state of Israel from the First Aliyah (1882 - 1903) to the Fifth Aliyah (1929-1939) either settled unclaimed territory or legally purchased land from absentee landlords. It is also my understanding that many of these Jewish settlers were very productive with the land to establish rightful ownership. This includes but is not limited to draining the swamps, drill water wells, clear out rocks and till the land until it became arable.

Sure there will be many claims that the Jews had no "right" to settle this land since it was a "Palestinian territory". However, I see these arguments as no more valid than Protectionist claims that Mexican natives have no right to immigrate to the United States to legally acquire land in search of a better life.

Someone else mentioned Palestinian refugees who were created during the Six Day War, presumably in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Well, to answer this question requires a nontrivial exploration of what is a legitimate government morally entitled to do if it needs to defend its own citizens (In my view, the Six Day War was clearly a justified war of self-defense for Israel, if there ever was such a war.)

If it is truly an act of self-defense, a just government has the right to do whatever it needs to do to defend its citizens. This includes occupying a territory that is inhabited by individuals who either endorse their region to be used as a staging ground for militant attacks on Israel (as is the case with both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; just look at how close the West Bank is to Jerusalem) or simply inhabited by individuals who are powerless to do anything to prevent the attacks. The latter certainly is unfortunate for the residents, but that is reality.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it that there is no particular piece of "evidence" that leads you to the conclusion that indeed the Sioux did have a well-defined property right to some chunk of unowned land?

Actually, a treaty was signed with the United States government giving title of the Black Hills to the Sioux in perpetuity. When the treaty was violated, laws were broken, and broken by the United States government. Later, the court, in its wisdom and through fairness according to the law attempted to right the injustice perpetrated on the Sioux.

--------------------------

As I went about my day and considered our conversation, a thought occurred to me. This discussion will prove fruitless and that has little to do with my mind however open it may be. What has happened here is that many other previous discussions with left-leaning or far left-leaning members have already colored the issue in your mind and doubtlessly in the minds of others here. That being the case, as I said, this discussion will have no resolution. And that is very sad to me because I am certainly nothing like those people with their ideas. To date, I have read nothing by Ayn that I thought even needed tweaking. I am about as far to the right as one could hope to get. I just realize, in a non-jingoist fashion, that this country has made mistakes in the past and two are self-evident, i.e. slavery and the treatment of Native Americans.

But... whatever. {shrugs}

Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, a treaty was signed with the United States government giving title of the Black Hills to the Sioux in perpetuity. When the treaty was violated, laws were broken, and broken by the United States government. Later, the court, in its wisdom and through fairness according to the law attempted to right the injustice perpetrated on the Sioux.

--------------------------

As I went about my day and considered our conversation, a thought occurred to me. This discussion will prove fruitless and that has little to do with my mind however open it may be. What has happened here is that many other previous discussions with left-leaning or far left-leaning members have already colored the issue in your mind and doubtlessly in the minds of others here. That being the case, as I said, this discussion will have no resolution. And that is very sad to me because I am certainly nothing like those people with their ideas. To date, I have read nothing by Ayn that I thought even needed tweaking. I am about as far to the right as one could hope to get. I just realize, in a non-jingoist fashion, that this country has made mistakes in the past and two are self-evident, i.e. slavery and the treatment of Native Americans.

But... whatever. {shrugs}

Good day.

Slavery is one practice that America deserves credit for vanquishing. The whole idea that America, which came into existence when there was a massive slave trade going on world wide was some how responsible for it is just an absurd proposition perpetrated by modern, anti-American intellectuals. America was founded in the promotion of liberty on principle for the first time in the history of mankind. And, make note, it was only with Enlightenment ideas that slavery was recognized as wrong in the first place. It was only with Enlightenment ideas that the practice was recognized as an abomination. It was in the West, in America, England and France that the practice was ended. It wasn't done in Africa. It wasn't done in South America.

Note also, leftists today care not one whit about slavery or harsh treatment of people. They didn't care about it in the Soviet Union, nor in Communist China. They didn't care about it in Iraq, nor in Iran, nor in Afghanistan. The point I'm making is that modern intellectuals who smear America falsely are themselves not nearly to the level of the founders either morally or intellectually. In fact, they are very corrupt and shallow thinkers. They would never have fought slavery, as is proven by their actions today and they have no capacity to defend liberty.

So, this whole idea America "made a mistake in the past" regarding slavery is only possible to make if you don't know the history of America or slavery. America is the country that 1> recognized it was immoral (the first major step), 2> had men with the courage to take it head on, 3> vanquished it. That's what America deserves credit for.

I guess at the end of the day, you really don't know how great this country is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Right, that is what I meant by "resemble important aspects." We are talking about societies without the concept of property rights, but trying to figure out if they may still procure property rights based on their use/occupation of the land. You have sketched out some broad fundamental guidelines as to how to evaluate a society's claim to land, particularly in post 40 of this thread. Let's stick with the Native American example. My understanding is that many Native Americans farmed, built structures, occupied the land permanently. Are any of these three criteria alone worthy of respecting that tribe's land ownership (if collectivism is a sticking point, perhaps consider it a 10,000 person co-op)? Does meeting all three of these criteria add enough weight to the claim to constitute ownership?

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.

The same question to you: would any pre-Columbus Native American tribes enjoy any land ownership rights, given their useage and occupancy of the land as expressed above? This assumes that we can agree that such peoples did more than "picking berries", "pitching tents", or "crapping in the woods."

Given the thoughts you have expressed on this thread, particularly with Gary, my guess is that you would not agree that some de facto property rights have been established. Again, I have to assert that most Native American tribes should have property rights on at least some of what they considered their territory, because I would be more liberal as to what constitutes land ownership for peoples who had not yet advanced intellectually enough to make more proper claims. Consider this partially benevolence, or whatever, but the alternative is clearly condemning these peoples to die, or significant numbers of them, as it is unrealistic to expect them to reverse centuries of tradition overnight to adapt. Look how long it took the Cherokee to see the light, and hell they still got screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavery is one practice that America deserves credit for vanquishing. The whole idea that America, which came into existence when there was a massive slave trade going on world wide was some how responsible for it is just an absurd proposition perpetrated by modern, anti-American intellectuals. America was founded in the promotion of liberty on principle for the first time in the history of mankind. And, make note, it was only with Enlightenment ideas that slavery was recognized as wrong in the first place. It was only with Enlightenment ideas that the practice was recognized as an abomination. It was in the West, in America, England and France that the practice was ended. It wasn't done in Africa. It wasn't done in South America.

Note also, leftists today care not one whit about slavery or harsh treatment of people. They didn't care about it in the Soviet Union, nor in Communist China. They didn't care about it in Iraq, nor in Iran, nor in Afghanistan. The point I'm making is that modern intellectuals who smear America falsely are themselves not nearly to the level of the founders either morally or intellectually. In fact, they are very corrupt and shallow thinkers. They would never have fought slavery, as is proven by their actions today and they have no capacity to defend liberty.

So, this whole idea America "made a mistake in the past" regarding slavery is only possible to make if you don't know the history of America or slavery. America is the country that 1> recognized it was immoral (the first major step), 2> had men with the courage to take it head on, 3> vanquished it. That's what America deserves credit for.

I guess at the end of the day, you really don't know how great this country is.

I don't know why you are bringing this up again as I thought you and I had settled this issue in another thread a while back. But okay, at the risk of side-tracking this thread even more, I'll bite again. America gets credit for vanquishing slavery, but it doesn't get a free pass on perpetuating it for almost 100 years after gaining independence. And it was only as a bi-product of the Civil War that slavery ended, it was never a magnanimous decision made on principal alone until it was politically convenient. And your complete omission of Christian Abolitionism is astounding. If you have something new to add please go back to that old thread and post there, rather than continue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To date, I have read nothing by Ayn that I thought even needed tweaking. I am about as far to the right as one could hope to get. I just realize, in a non-jingoist fashion, that this country has made mistakes in the past and two are self-evident, i.e. slavery and the treatment of Native Americans.

But... whatever. {shrugs}

Good day.

Sewdo, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many Objectivists who don't think that this country has made some mistakes over its history, particularly with regard to the issues of slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. On the other hand, the Left uses these issues to discredit the ideas upon which this great nation was founded. Not that I speak for the group, but this assault on American ideals is what doesn't fly with most Objectivists.

By the way, I think you've asked some good questions about a very difficult and complex issue. I appreciate the way you've approached it honestly, as opposed to some of the others in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same question to you: would any pre-Columbus Native American tribes enjoy any land ownership rights, given their useage and occupancy of the land as expressed above? This assumes that we can agree that such peoples did more than "picking berries", "pitching tents", or "crapping in the woods."

Given the thoughts you have expressed on this thread, particularly with Gary, my guess is that you would not agree that some de facto property rights have been established.

The answer is no doubt "yes". Because you put the restriction pre-Columbian on the sites (and I can't imagine what relevance such a condition has for the discussion), that makes it really a lot harder to be specific, given the depth of archaeological research that would be required to say who they were. The picture I linked to above probably doesn't represent a settlement from before 1492 and there may not have been one right there over 500 years ago. I don't know of any specific evidence that establishes a property claim in the Northwest going that far back. The history of Cuzco is less obscure, so I can say "at least 1", and point to it.

I hope it's clear that I hold your interjection of a pre-Columbian restriction to be fundamentally wrong-headed. The proper question to be asking is, in the context where there is no civilization and no government, where anarchy prevails, how should a rational and moral being deal with other people? Very simply, he should attempt to determine what is somebody's property, and he should respect that person's right to property, but he may and should take for his own property unowned land that he recognizes as a tool for his survival. Thus is it not proper to use force to remove campers from the land, but a man may properly take land near where someone is camping. The (generally proper) acquisition of land in the Northwest stands in contrast to the clearly immoral acquisition of Cherokee land in Georgia or Runa land in Cuzco. Nevertheless, the cat is out of the bag as far as Georgia is concerned: these ancient wrongs have no relevance to modern life, except as philosophical and historical object lessons. We can point to them and say "When we say that it is wrong to deal with people by force, this is what we mean". At the same time, when pointing to examples of wrong behavior, we have to point to the aggression by the Lakota against innocent settlers. The unifying principle here is not a cultural-relativistic "how do they consider the land", but an objective one -- are you dealing with an individual by reason, or by force.

Again, I have to assert that most Native American tribes should have property rights on at least some of what they considered their territory, because I would be more liberal as to what constitutes land ownership for peoples who had not yet advanced intellectually enough to make more proper claims.
What percentage? You can round to the nearest 10%, I'm just looking for a ballpark. Is this based on pre-Columbian evidence, or does it include evidence at the time of contact? (If the latter, why are you considering it, or what was the relevance of your earlier pre-Columbian restriction?)
Consider this partially benevolence, or whatever, but the alternative is clearly condemning these peoples to die, or significant numbers of them, as it is unrealistic to expect them to reverse centuries of tradition overnight to adapt.
It is clearly not condemning a person to die if you require them to respect other people's rights. Are you really claiming that because some Indians lived as savages for centuries that they were genetically incapable of using their minds and grasping the concept of a man having rights? And if you're interested, there are many instances in history where tribes did not enjoy their property rights, and yet they did not die. For example, Jews were forceably taken from their land millenia ago, and yet they still exist. The Cherokee were forceably taken from their land in 1838 and yet there are thousands of Cherokee in Oklahoma. A bunch of Dutchmen disrespected the property rights of a bunch a Welshmen around 1600 years ago, and yet there are still Welshmen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proper question to be asking is, in the context where there is no civilization and no government, where anarchy prevails, how should a rational and moral being deal with other people? Very simply, he should attempt to determine what is somebody's property, and he should respect that person's right to property, but he may and should take for his own property unowned land that he recognizes as a tool for his survival. Thus is it not proper to use force to remove campers from the land, but a man may properly take land near where someone is camping. The (generally proper) acquisition of land in the Northwest stands in contrast to the clearly immoral acquisition of Cherokee land in Georgia or Runa land in Cuzco. Nevertheless, the cat is out of the bag as far as Georgia is concerned: these ancient wrongs have no relevance to modern life, except as philosophical and historical object lessons. We can point to them and say "When we say that it is wrong to deal with people by force, this is what we mean". At the same time, when pointing to examples of wrong behavior, we have to point to the aggression by the Lakota against innocent settlers. The unifying principle here is not a cultural-relativistic "how do they consider the land", but an objective one -- are you dealing with an individual by reason, or by force.

This is a great summary of the principle involved. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29.../comments/#ctop

I don't know why you are bringing this up again as I thought you and I had settled this issue in another thread a while back.

I responded to Swedo's claim. He brought it up.

But okay, at the risk of side-tracking this thread even more, I'll bite again. America gets credit for vanquishing slavery, but it doesn't get a free pass on perpetuating it for almost 100 years after gaining independence. And it was only as a bi-product of the Civil War that slavery ended, it was never a magnanimous decision made on principal alone until it was politically convenient. And your complete omission of Christian Abolitionism is astounding. If you have something new to add please go back to that old thread and post there, rather than continue here.

Again, it takes great effort to end a long standing institution that is ingrained in a culture. It's not something that is changed on a dime. Do you agree with this? In fact, it's remarkable how fast it was changed.

You really can't say that America "perpetuated it for 100 years". It was just that hard to bring it to an end and it required the most costly of wars to really end it. Hold context: slavery existed everywhere through all of man's history and was not vanquished nor even understood to be wrong. In America it was ended.

And, while I give the Christian Abolitionists some credit, it was not Christianity that brought to light the evils of slavery. They simply picked up on Enlightenment ideas. I'll repeat my point, Christianity had existed for well over a thousand years and had not brought freedom anywhere. Indeed, the opposite is true. The Dark Ages are the legacy of Christianity.

Sewdo, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many Objectivists who don't think that this country has made some mistakes over its history, particularly with regard to the issues of slavery and the treatment of Native Americans.

This is an injustice. Saying that America made "mistakes" regarding slavery, as if that's the essential, completely drops context of the times. Here you have this historical precedent of a country founded on ideas that put a stop to slavery and the thing people highlight are the non-essentials. All you do is perpetrate an injustice by repeating the claim. What should be said first and foremost is that America founded a country that set out the ideals that ended slavery and supported the freedom of all men on principle. Then, after that you can talk about the mistakes that were made, but it's way down the list in comparison to the feat.

It's not as if through out all of mankind's history there was a concept of individual rights and men knew that slavery was wrong. That's not true.

The reason I bring up modern leftist intellectuals is because they are the ones spreading these half-truths. They do it routinely and systematically in class rooms. The real irony of this is that they themselves are not defenders of liberty. They value men like Marx, Stalin, Castro, and defend totalitarian Islamic regimes.

I recently read a thread on little green footballs, where many of the people seemed to understand the achievements of the founders.

For instance, this is post #29. This was in response to a comment by Reverend Wright, where he vilified the founders:

God Damn Jeremiah Wright, and God Damn Senator Obama for sticking with the ostensible Reverend.

Slavery was ALREADY HERE when the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, and they limited the power of the slave states via the magnificent three-fifths rule. Unable to create a perfect Union all at once, they made great progress, and laid the ground explicitly for further progress.

The Founding Fathers took this country from a slave-holding collection of Colonies to a fiercely abolitionist Union.

We all are their unworthy heirs. But some of us at least know gratitude.

This is the link to that post

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/29/5138949

This is the link to the full thread

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29.../comments/#ctop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an injustice. Saying that America made "mistakes" regarding slavery, as if that's the essential, completely drops context of the times. Here you have this historical precedent of a country founded on ideas that put a stop to slavery and the thing people highlight are the non-essentials. All you do is perpetrate an injustice by repeating the claim.
Of course that's not what I said, nor is it what I meant to imply. As to what Sewdo meant, he'll have to speak for himself. However, one can't simply dismiss American mistakes as they relate to the issue of slavery. That approach risks distorting history and/or ignoring the lessons we should learn from previous bad decisions.

What should be said first and foremost is that America founded a country that set out the ideals that ended slavery and supported the freedom of all men on principle. Then, after that you can talk about the mistakes that were made, but it's way down the list in comparison to the feat.
Right. You must have missed the part of my post where I mentioned that: "the Left uses these issues to discredit the ideas upon which this great nation was founded." The mistakes made related to slavery don't discredit American ideals any more than government intervention in the economy discredits Capitalism or the mistakes of some individual men discredit Objectivism. Edited by gags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that many Native Americans farmed, built structures, occupied the land permanently. Are any of these three criteria alone worthy of respecting that tribe's land ownership (if collectivism is a sticking point, perhaps consider it a 10,000 person co-op)? Does meeting all three of these criteria add enough weight to the claim to constitute ownership?

Sorry to delay in responding, but I've had a whole bunch of work in teh real world that has been occupying my time.

I've indicated in a couple of posts that where this is the case, then one might consider the claim to have some merit. Note however that the claim woudl be much smaller than a territory and be limited to those areas where land was improved. Just a quick search suggests to me that this was not as widespread a condition as you might expect. In fact, if I take the descriptpions of hte shelters in this site as true, then the Northeast, the great Plains, The Great Basin, The Northwest were all free for the taking. I suspect that most of the Southeast, and Southwest were as well since the land mass of improvement is far smaller than the wild territoroies in it. If I were to accept this criteria as I have stated would you then rescind the claim that this was a widespread condition and agree that as a result white settlers had right to claim and improve the lands where this was not the case. (this was the same question I asked Brenner which he decided not to answer - as the effect of accepting it is that it takes away most people's grinding axes.)

My continued objection is with the characterization of this mess as a broad violation of property rights. Certainly in cases where rights were granted and then rescinded by force, these are violations of rights, but I believe that this is less of an issue than woudl be represented. But then I'll give a hearing to anyone who wants to integrate those instances into the whole of the history. For tribes that were nomadic the encroachment of white people simply meant that they ultimately chose to move ahead of the advancing front, in which case one has a tough time considering claims to property that one willingly abandons. In addition, one has a tough time avoiding the fact that some Indians chose to deal with settlements in a violent manner, and last I checked when one chooses to deal with others in a violent manner relatiation is justified. So at this point which acts of violence by settlers are justified, which are not, and which acts of movement by Indians are voluntary and which were not. If someone analyzes this I'm sure that we'll see that the guilt trips that some would have us travel are not warranted. No record is spotless. I'm just suggesting that neither is Western man to be so soundly faulted.

The other issue I have is with those who chose to fault Rand for her position, when even if she made errors in assessing the frequency and prevalence (which I'm not yet convinced of) of such instances, the very principles we are using to deduce those errors are the ones she stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that's not what I said, nor is it what I meant to imply. As to what Sewdo meant, he'll have to speak for himself. However, one can't simply dismiss American mistakes as they relate to the issue of slavery. That approach risks distorting history and/or ignoring the lessons we should learn from previous bad decisions.

The point is that the mistakes, such as they were, paled in comparison to the achievement of promoting liberty and ending slavery. America came into existence when slavery already existed. Unique in all of mankind's history is a country that sets out "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This idea is at the heart of America, and it is what brought an end to the practice of slavery in America.

Those who point to America and say "Hey, they had slaves" are the ones who are guilty of distorting history, because they are not providing the full context. Why don't they provide full context? Isn't that evasion?

Right. You must have missed the part of my post where I mentioned that: "the Left uses these issues to discredit the ideas upon which this great nation was founded." The mistakes made related to slavery don't discredit American ideals any more than government intervention in the economy discredits Capitalism or the mistakes of some individual men discredit Objectivism.

No, I didn't miss your point. I'm just aware of level of emphasis. I don't grant leftists their premise that America was an evil slave promoting country, because the heart and soul of America is the opposite and everyone should know that. I don't take these things lightly, because I believe the vilification of America has real effects on our liberties today. America's founding ideals are worth saving. In fact, they are necessary to our freedoms. That goes for every human being in America. So, I have passion for this issue for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding solely to the title and description, it depends on the status of the country. I believe that it depends on the status of the country. How primitive a country are we talking about here? I mean, are we speaking Sherpas of Nepal primitive or bushmen in Africa? Second, are the resources vital to the sustenance of said primitive countries? I think that those are the two biggest determining factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The answer is no doubt "yes". Because you put the restriction pre-Columbian on the sites (and I can't imagine what relevance such a condition has for the discussion)... I don't know of any specific evidence that establishes a property claim in the Northwest going that far back. The history of Cuzco is less obscure, so I can say "at least 1", and point to it.

I haven't been back in awhile but I wanted to at least post one last thought on this thread. My arbitrary selection of pre-1492 America is just an attempt at trying to narrow down some concrete examples to work with, much as your arbitrary selection of the Northwest.

I hope it's clear that I hold your interjection of a pre-Columbian restriction to be fundamentally wrong-headed. The proper question to be asking is, in the context where there is no civilization and no government, where anarchy prevails, how should a rational and moral being deal with other people? Very simply, he should attempt to determine what is somebody's property, and he should respect that person's right to property, but he may and should take for his own property unowned land that he recognizes as a tool for his survival.

There seems to be a big difference of opinion on what constitutes property in societies that don't recognize individual property rights. I don't see why you feel I'm being wrong-headed, because I don't know of any real world historical circumstances such as this (no civilization, no government, total anarchy) since perhaps the stone age. I give Kendall credit for at least taking this question head on and coming up with some objective criteria to make a determination of the limits of property rights for such societies. You seem to keep scooting around the issue, but regardless you don't seem to want to say definitively whether or not individuals in such societies, based on the criteria I laid out earlier, would have any property rights beyond what they physically were living on.

It is clearly not condemning a person to die if you require them to respect other people's rights. Are you really claiming that because some Indians lived as savages for centuries that they were genetically incapable of using their minds and grasping the concept of a man having rights?

I don't know why you brought genetics into this but clearly it is not a factor. Cultural conditioning is a powerful force, and I'm saying you could not expect them to understand and accept another way of seeing property overnight, when it would probably take at least a generation to truly overturn their cultural norms, even when a more enlightened view is handed to them. Surely you can see your inflexible approach to the matter would visit suffering on a great many people, simply because they were unenlightened enough to override their cultural conditioning.

And if you're interested, there are many instances in history where tribes did not enjoy their property rights, and yet they did not die. For example, Jews were forceably taken from their land millenia ago, and yet they still exist. The Cherokee were forceably taken from their land in 1838 and yet there are thousands of Cherokee in Oklahoma. A bunch of Dutchmen disrespected the property rights of a bunch a Welshmen around 1600 years ago, and yet there are still Welshmen.

So its cool if great numbers of them die as long as the ethnic group still exists? I'm just saying I wouldn't be so rigid in my implementation of property rights when confronted with a culture where that idea had not yet evolved. My determination of a land rights would have to include enough of the claimed land to keep such a society viable, with access to water and natural resources relative to its population. However, I am not an expert on early Native American societies. It is possible, as Kendall points out, such claims to land would be far more limited than the territories they laid claim to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it takes great effort to end a long standing institution that is ingrained in a culture. It's not something that is changed on a dime. Do you agree with this? In fact, it's remarkable how fast it was changed.

You really can't say that America "perpetuated it for 100 years". It was just that hard to bring it to an end and it required the most costly of wars to really end it. Hold context: slavery existed everywhere through all of man's history and was not vanquished nor even understood to be wrong. In America it was ended.

This is an injustice. Saying that America made "mistakes" regarding slavery, as if that's the essential, completely drops context of the times. Here you have this historical precedent of a country founded on ideas that put a stop to slavery and the thing people highlight are the non-essentials. All you do is perpetrate an injustice by repeating the claim. What should be said first and foremost is that America founded a country that set out the ideals that ended slavery and supported the freedom of all men on principle. Then, after that you can talk about the mistakes that were made, but it's way down the list in comparison to the feat.

I think you yourself are doing an outstanding job of context dropping here. Slavery didn't end until it was convenient to do so, but you ignore that and contend that it was just some magnanimous decision that America made on principal alone. No one would ever understand the real history coming from such an oversimplification of it. The real truth involves things that are ugly, beautiful, horrific, humane, intelligent, ignorant, etc. Whitewashing history does no one any good but the propagandists. We don't need to love our country like a 2-year old loves his mommy; we need to recognize and understand our country for what it is, and has been, warts and all, and embrace it all the same.

Here is a link to the previous discussion and my points regarding your assertions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So its cool if great numbers of them die as long as the ethnic group still exists? I'm just saying I wouldn't be so rigid in my implementation of property rights when confronted with a culture where that idea had not yet evolved. My determination of a land rights would have to include enough of the claimed land to keep such a society viable, with access to water and natural resources relative to its population.

What a number of individuals need has nothing to do with what they own. Ever. By the way, your extremely liberal interpretation of David's examples is disgusting. Please refrain from putting your own words in someone else's mouth. He did not even hint that 'its cool if great numbers of [people] die', and implying that he did looks like slander to me.

As for 'your implementation' and 'your determination' of property rights: they're your ideas. You're welcome to them. But until you have a more objective basis for your version of property 'rights', don't expect anyone else here to entertain your ideas as valid. The rigidity you're railing against is called principle, and while I can understand being confused about the basis of property rights, I cannot understand the needs-based ideas you're put forth here. Those belong in the debate forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...