Why be pro-American Foreign Policy?

[AisA]

In fact, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 under President Andrew Jackson had nothing to do with preventing "vicious attacks on settlements."  The Cherokee Nation had long been recognized as one of the most progressive among American Indian tribes.  The 17,000 Cherokees who were subject to Jackson's forcible exile had been living not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers and tradesmen.  They resided peacefully alongside whites and often intermarried with them.  The "Trail of Tears" was the result not of self-defense but of government-sponsored racism and a desire for the undeserved.  The State of Georgia's attempt to cancel Indian land titles was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the state and in favor of Indian land owners in Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832.  President Jackson ignored the court and proceeded with the ethnic cleansing, which left approximately 4,000 dead from hunger and exposure.  So much for the rule of law.

In the first place, the Worcester vs Gerogia suit did not apply to the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It applied to the State of Georgia's attempt to make state laws applicable to Indian "territory".

The decision acknowledges the Federal government's jurisdiction in these matters as follows:

The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.

The act of the State of Georgia under which the plaintiff in error was prosecuted is consequently void, and the judgement a nullity. . . . The Acts of Georgia are repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

They interfere forcibly with the relations established between the United States and the Cherokee Nation, the regulation of which according to the settled principles of our Constitution, are committed exclusively to the government of the Union.

Thus, it is inaccurate to say that Andrew Jackson ignored the court. The court said nothing about the Removal Act of 1830.

The very notion of a tribe that controls a portion of a state and enforces laws contrary to the state’s laws is improper. The Indians should have been required to comply with state and federal law like everyone else. The existence of the various territories and treaties is a result of the fact the Indians would not respect the law.

Today, of course, the image of the Indian has received the same post-modern cleansing as that of the Palestinians and a whole new legend has been created. Like so much post-modern revisionism, it has been taken up and repeated by countless college professors, leftists and America-hating activists until it is accepted as fact. The deaths of Indians on a long cross country trip -- at a time when death rates for everyone were high and a cross-country trip was risky for everyone -- now becomes a “genocide“, and an effort to reach an accommodation with those who refused to obey the law becomes an “ethnic cleansing” .

This ignores the fact that the simplest “ethnic cleansing” would have been to allow the local white settlers to “locally genocide” the Indians and be done with it, which, of course, did not happen. Instead we are asked to believe that the President and Congress engaged in a conspiracy with the state of Georgia to pass bogus legislation for purposes of conducting a long, drawn out, mass murder across the span of the nation. Ignore the fact that this was a woefully ineffective genocide and one that involved the participation of thousands of witnesses -- just accept the fact that it happened, common sense to the contrary notwithstanding.

The fact is had the Indians indeed been as peaceful and law-abiding as they are now described, there would have been no need for Indian territories and treaties, and the white man would have had no reason to want them removed.

I have no doubt that in some cases, the rights of Indians were violated and that racism was rampant. I also have no doubt that by and large the Indians neither understood nor recognized the concept of rights and were also guilty of racism.

[Tom Robinson]

In the first place, the Worcester vs Gerogia suit did not apply to the Indian Removal Act of 1830.  It applied to the State of Georgia's attempt to make state laws applicable to Indian "territory".

The decision acknowledges the Federal government's jurisdiction in these matters as follows:  

Thus, it is inaccurate to say that Andrew Jackson ignored the court.  The court said nothing about the Removal Act of 1830.

The very notion of a tribe that controls a portion of a state and enforces laws contrary to the state’s laws is improper.  The Indians should have been required to comply with state and federal law like everyone else.  The existence of the various territories and treaties is a result of the fact the Indians would not respect the law.

In fact, many Cherokees who were living within white communities were forcibly removed. Furthermore, prior to removal, state courts and officials in Georgia regularly enforced state laws on Cherokees. So your claim that the ethnic cleansing was about maintaining state law has no more merit than your previous claim that removal was prompted by the fact that it was “impossible to coexist with them” or that they waged “vicious attacks on settlements.”

Today, of course, the image of the Indian has received the same post-modern cleansing as that of the Palestinians and a whole new legend has been created.  Like so much post-modern revisionism, it has been taken up and repeated by countless college professors, leftists and America-hating activists until it is accepted as fact.  The deaths of Indians on a long cross country trip -- at a time when death rates for everyone were high and a cross-country trip was risky for everyone -- now becomes a “genocide“, and an effort to reach an accommodation with those who refused to obey the law becomes an “ethnic cleansing” .

This ignores the fact that the simplest “ethnic cleansing” would have been to allow the local white settlers to “locally genocide” the Indians and be done with it, which, of course, did not happen.  Instead we are asked to believe that the President and Congress engaged in a conspiracy with the state of Georgia to pass bogus legislation for purposes of conducting a long, drawn out, mass murder across the span of the nation.  Ignore the fact that this was a woefully ineffective genocide and one that involved the participation of thousands of witnesses -- just accept the fact that it happened, common sense to the contrary notwithstanding.

I never used the word “genocide” to describe the removal of the Cherokees. Nor is it my claim that the intention of Congress was mass murder. I have already made clear what the goal was: to seize land. The fact that thousands died on the road to the west was purely incidental.

The fact is had the Indians indeed been as peaceful and law-abiding as they are now described, there would have been no need for Indian territories and treaties, and the white man would have had no reason to want them removed.

You might as well say, that if blacks had been peaceful and law-abiding, there would have been no need for Jim Crow laws. Please! Why not read Leonard Carlson’s Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 http://www.eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Carlson.pdf

I have no doubt that in some cases, the rights of Indians were violated and that racism was rampant.  I also have no doubt that by and large the Indians neither understood nor recognized the concept of rights and were also guilty of racism.

Then you are misinformed. The Cherokee nation, long before the ethnic cleansing began, had moved to a system of individual property ownership. Furthermore, what is the point in raising the question of racism by the Indians? Should racism be punished by removal to the frontier?

Edited March 8, 2005 by Tom Robinson

[AisA]

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 8 2005, 02:01 PM)

In the first place, the Worcester vs Gerogia suit did not apply to the Indian Removal Act of 1830. It applied to the State of Georgia's attempt to make state laws applicable to Indian "territory".

The decision acknowledges the Federal government's jurisdiction in these matters as follows:

Thus, it is inaccurate to say that Andrew Jackson ignored the court. The court said nothing about the Removal Act of 1830.

The very notion of a tribe that controls a portion of a state and enforces laws contrary to the state’s laws is improper. The Indians should have been required to comply with state and federal law like everyone else. The existence of the various territories and treaties is a result of the fact the Indians would not respect the law.

In fact, many Cherokees who were living within white communities were forcibly removed.  Furthermore, prior to removal, state courts and officials in Georgia regularly enforced state laws on Cherokees.

Perhaps, but the whole point of Worcester vs. Georgia was an attempt to prevent the state of Georgia from applying state law to Indian “territory”.

So your claim that the ethnic cleansing was about maintaining state law has no more merit than your previous claim that removal was prompted by the fact that it was “impossible to coexist with them” or that they waged “vicious attacks on settlements.”

You should read what I write before you post. I have made no claim to the effect that “the ethnic cleansing was about maintaining state law”. According to Jackson’s statements, the Removal Act was necessary only after the failure of years of efforts to co-exist. If you wish to believe that this was a lie, and the whole thing instead was a conspiracy to seize land, you are free to attempt to prove such a thing.

In any event, it is irrelevant to the central issue of whether the U.S. government is the moral equivalent of the terrorists. Even the most extreme of these claims does not rise to that level.

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 8 2005, 02:01 PM)

Today, of course, the image of the Indian has received the same post-modern cleansing as that of the Palestinians and a whole new legend has been created. Like so much post-modern revisionism, it has been taken up and repeated by countless college professors, leftists and America-hating activists until it is accepted as fact. The deaths of Indians on a long cross country trip -- at a time when death rates for everyone were high and a cross-country trip was risky for everyone -- now becomes a “genocide“, and an effort to reach an accommodation with those who refused to obey the law becomes an “ethnic cleansing” .

This ignores the fact that the simplest “ethnic cleansing” would have been to allow the local white settlers to “locally genocide” the Indians and be done with it, which, of course, did not happen. Instead we are asked to believe that the President and Congress engaged in a conspiracy with the state of Georgia to pass bogus legislation for purposes of conducting a long, drawn out, mass murder across the span of the nation. Ignore the fact that this was a woefully ineffective genocide and one that involved the participation of thousands of witnesses -- just accept the fact that it happened, common sense to the contrary notwithstanding.

I never used the word “genocide” to describe the removal of the Cherokees. Nor is it my claim that the intention of Congress was mass murder.

I did not say that you said anything. Skywalker used the term genocide . You did, however, describe it as an ethnic cleansing.

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 8 2005, 02:01 PM)

The fact is had the Indians indeed been as peaceful and law-abiding as they are now described, there would have been no need for Indian territories and treaties, and the white man would have had no reason to want them removed.

You might as well say, that if blacks had been peaceful and law-abiding, there would have been no need for Jim Crow laws. Please!

I fail to see the analogy here. The Jim Crow laws were enacted to prevent private businesses from serving blacks in the same facilities as whites. For example, a Louisiana railroad was prevented from allowing blacks to ride with whites in the same car. This was not done at the request of the railroad. They had no qualms about the behavior of blacks. How does this situation relate to the Indian problem?

Why not read Leonard Carlson’s Economic Interests and the Passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 http://www.eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Carlson.pdf

I read it. It notes that the Removal Act called for voluntary agreements and authorized federal spending for that purpose. It asserts, without offering any proof, that the treaty under which the Cherokees agreed to move was “fraudulent”.

The fact that slave owners were more likely to vote for the Removal Act than non-slave owners establishes a correlation, but it doesn’t tell us why there was a correlation. Carlson infers a land-grab motivation. However, it can just as easily be explained by the fact that the Indians to be removed -- the one’s still creating problems at that point -- were primarily in the slave states.

In any event, if the motive was, as you claim:

I have already made clear what the goal was: to seize land.

Why wasn’t the Removal Act mandatory, instead of voluntary? If the purpose was to "seize" land, why not just do so?

QUOTE(AisA @ Mar 8 2005, 02:01 PM)

I have no doubt that in some cases, the rights of Indians were violated and that racism was rampant. I also have no doubt that by and large the Indians neither understood nor recognized the concept of rights and were also guilty of racism.

Then you are misinformed. The Cherokee nation, long before the ethnic cleansing began, had moved to a system of individual property ownership.

Yes, and what they claimed to own was an enormous area that they had merely wandered over for decades. Map 3 in the link you provided shows that as of 1820, the Indians claimed to “own” half the state of Georgia!

Furthermore, what is the point in raising the question of racism by the Indians?

To point out that the racism was not a unilateral phenomena.

Should racism be punished by removal to the frontier?

No.

[EC]

I have nothing to say accept I agree with AisA's statements. Even if all of this stuff is true it still in no way puts the U.S. government in any way in an analogous moral position of the modern terroists which seems to be the point of this. It's simply false. Our government still possesses the full moral right to kill any person at any time that supports or engages in terrorism against us anywhere in the world. Up to the level of killing whole populations of illegitimate nations if need be. Which is what I really think is analogous to the "genocide" of Indians. Of which blood I also have coursing through my veins.

When I say I want to see evidence, I don't mean someones, anyones, interpretation of these events. I want to see directives from our government at the time these events took place, I want to see first hand reports of the major particpants, if any. And maybe newspaper articles circa from that era dealing with this issue. I don't want to see modern interpretations that could have formed by biased individuals whose whole purpose could have been to find "evidence" of past government impropriety for the sole purpose of attempting to negate America's modern day moral standing, which is being attempted here in this very thread by people who "claim" to be Objectivists. This type of "evidence" can properly be discarded without consideration for the exact say reasons "evidence" of global catastrophe's, etc., can instantly be discarded without further consideration when offered by environmentalists.

[Hal]

I'm mildly curious where you people are getting your history from, since the entire academic and mainstream fields seem to be filled with evil leftist nonsense.

[EC]

I'm mildly curious where you people are getting your history from, since the entire academic and mainstream fields seem to be filled with evil leftist nonsense.

Exactly!

[Tom Robinson]

Perhaps, but the whole point of Worcester vs. Georgia was an attempt to prevent the state of Georgia from applying state law to Indian “territory”.

Is it your view that state law may usurp laws enacted by Congress?

You should read what I write before you post.  I have made no claim to the effect that “the ethnic cleansing was about maintaining state law”.  According to Jackson’s statements, the Removal Act was necessary only after the failure of years of efforts to co-exist.  If you wish to believe that this was a lie, and the whole thing instead was a conspiracy to seize land, you are free to attempt to prove such a thing.

I have cited two works, one available complete online, in support of that position.

In any event, it is irrelevant to the central issue of whether the U.S. government is the moral equivalent of the terrorists.  Even the most extreme of these claims does not rise to that level.

I have no desire to argue that point. My presence on this thread was prompted by your statement, “Waging war against tribes that launched vicious attacks on settlements is not murder,” which incorrectly implies that the Trail of Tears was a legitimate act of self-defense.

I did not say that you said anything.  Skywalker used the term genocide .  You did, however, describe it as an ethnic cleansing.

In response to one of my posts, you wrote, “The deaths of Indians on a long cross country trip -- at a time when death rates for everyone were high and a cross-country trip was risky for everyone -- now becomes a ‘genocide’, and an effort to reach an accommodation with those who refused to obey the law becomes an ‘ethnic cleansing’ .”

Now if you were addressing your remarks to the Internet audience in general and not to me in particular, then there is no need to explain myself further.

I fail to see the analogy here.  The Jim Crow laws were enacted to prevent private businesses from serving blacks in the same facilities as whites.  For example, a Louisiana  railroad was prevented from allowing blacks to ride with whites in the same car.  This was not done at the request of the railroad.  They had no qualms about the behavior of blacks.  How does this situation relate to the Indian problem?

Both were actions by a government elected by a racial majority to forcibly segregate a racial minority and economically and socially marginalize them. The more important point, though, is that the vast majority of Indians removed had committed no moral or legal infractions yet were subjected to legalized kidnapping and murder for the “crime” of being of the wrong blood.

I read it.  It notes that the Removal Act called for voluntary agreements and authorized federal spending for that purpose. It asserts, without offering any proof, that the treaty under which the Cherokees agreed to move was “fraudulent”.

Unless one accepts the collectivist notion that an ethnic “leader” has the moral authority to sign away the property of all members of his tribe, then there was nothing voluntary about the military forcing the individual Cherokees out of their houses and off their farms. In any case, there was hardly unanimity among Cherokee elders about the wisdom of migration.

The fact that slave owners were more likely to vote for the Removal Act than non-slave owners establishes a correlation, but it doesn’t tell us why there was a correlation.  Carlson infers a land-grab motivation.  However, it can just as easily be explained by the fact that the Indians to be removed -- the one’s still creating problems at that point -- were primarily in the slave states.

What problems? The only “problem” posed by the Cherokee is that he occupied land that politicians, speculators and developers wanted without having to acquire in a free market exchange.

In any event, if the motive was, as you claim:

Why wasn’t the Removal Act mandatory, instead of voluntary?  If the purpose was to "seize" land, why not just do so?

It wasn’t voluntary. It was enforced at the points of guns and bayonets. From the journal of Private John G. Burnett: “I saw the helpless Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes, and driven at bayonet point into stockades. And in the chill of a drizzling rain on an October morning I saw them loaded like cattle or sheep into six hundred and forty-five wagons and started toward the west.” http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_...val/burnett.cfm

Yes, and what they claimed to own was an enormous area that they had merely wandered over for decades.  Map 3 in the link you provided shows that as of 1820, the Indians claimed to “own” half the state of Georgia!

Agreed, those claims may not have been entirely legitimate. But the Indian Removal Act essentially nullified all Cherokee property, including all lands that had been tilled, all livestock that had been raised, all homes and villages that had been built. You don’t respond to someone’s unjustified claim by legally canceling every property title that person holds!

[Dominique]

Lol @ Dominique. I understand your motive...you were like "Chill out. No need to trip." I get it.

No problem Tryp, can I call you Tryp? We're cool

Oh, but you haven't rebuked me for it either, so you're obviously part of the conspiracy!

:lol:

shhhhh

[Tom Rexton]

I'd like to point out that all this discussions concerning past atrocities committed by the US government is totally irrelevant to the war on terror and does not in any way make this war less moral or even immoral on the same level as the terrorists who seek to destroy us. No individual (and therefore no group of individuals) is morally responsible for the actions of his ancestors; likewise, the current Administration is not morally culpable for Jackson's forced relocation of the Indians, Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese, or any other Administration's purportedly immoral actions. Americans have every moral right--and bear no moral culpability for the atrocities of their ancestors--to eradicate the terrorists and their supporting regimes, all the while standing on the moral high ground because theirs is the moral cause, the cause for individual rights.

---

Even the West German government would have had the moral right to wage a war of self-defense against Soviet Russia despite the fact that its predecessor was Nazi Germany.

[EC]

^ Tom made the exact point I've been trying to make the whole time here, with limited success. Good job.

[AisA]

  The more important point, though, is that the vast majority of Indians removed had committed no moral or legal infractions yet were subjected to legalized kidnapping and murder for the “crime” of being of the wrong blood. 

Since the Removal Act stipulated only voluntary relocations, these kidnappings and murders were not legalized, unless there is some other law that authorized them.

What problems? The only “problem” posed by the Cherokee is that he occupied land that politicians, speculators and developers wanted without having to acquire in a free market exchange.

The problem was the Indian position that since they had wandered around the state of Georgia (and elsewhere), they owned it and had the right to kill any white man that came on their land without permission.

It wasn’t voluntary.  It was enforced at the points of guns and bayonets. From the journal of Private John G. Burnett: “I saw the helpless Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes, and driven at bayonet point into stockades. And in the chill of a drizzling rain on an October morning I saw them loaded like cattle or sheep into six hundred and forty-five wagons and started toward the west.” http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_...val/burnett.cfm

I think this presents only one side of the story. How many of these "helpless Cherokees" had previously participated in the murder of whites? How many had given aid and comfort to those Indians that were effectively America's first terrorists? How many had killed white hunters caught on Indian land?

When you judge the actions of others, you must judge them in context. For instance, Lincoln, the "great emancipator", was in fact an avowed racist. He stated explicitly that blacks were inherently inferior and he favored deporting every black man, woman and child to Africa or to Central America. As president, he worked toward that goal. But to judge him, we must bear in mind what was known about blacks back then, not from the perspective of what we know today. Thus, I would not condemn Lincoln morally for his racism -- I would say he was mistaken, not evil, whereas any such attitude today is evil.

(Slavery, however, was evil. Even if there were reason to believe, as Lincoln did, that blacks were intellectually inferior and incapable of existing with the white man, there was no reason to believe them to be rightless creatures.)

Similarly, we must judge the white man's actions toward the Indian in the context of what was known then, not now.

When I came through the education system 35 years ago, I was taught that the Indian problem was a complex situation aggravated by atrocities commited by both sides -- and that both sides broke numerous treaties and agreements. The Indians -- including the Cherokees -- had one non-negotiable demand: they wanted a large terroritory reserved exclusively for Indians with the white man forbidden. The settlers had a conflicting demand: the right to settle on otherwise vacant land.

The Removal Act was an attempt to reconcile those demands. Was it wrong? Yes. Was it evil? I don't think so, not viewed in the context of what was known then.

The notion that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" seems outrageous to us now, but like Lincoln's plan for universal black deportation, it may not have been an unreasonable notion given what was known at the time.

Agreed, those claims may not have been entirely legitimate.  But the Indian Removal Act essentially nullified all Cherokee property, including all lands that had been tilled, all livestock that had been raised, all homes and villages that had been built.  You don’t respond to someone’s unjustified claim by legally canceling every property title that person holds!

I agree. However, as near as I can tell, the Removal Act itself did not nullify anyone's property rights.

[AisA]

I'd like to point out that all this discussions concerning past atrocities committed by the US government is totally irrelevant to the war on terror and does not in any way make this war less moral or even immoral on the same level as the terrorists who seek to destroy us.  No individual (and therefore no group of individuals) is morally responsible for the actions of his ancestors; likewise, the current Administration is not morally culpable for Jackson's forced relocation of the Indians, Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese, or any other Administration's purportedly immoral actions.  Americans have every moral right--and bear no moral culpability for the atrocities of their ancestors--to eradicate the terrorists and their supporting regimes, all the while standing on the moral high ground because theirs is the moral cause, the cause for individual rights.

---

Even the West German government would have had the moral right to wage a war of self-defense against Soviet Russia despite the fact that its predecessor was Nazi Germany.

I agree completely. And I can't think of a better example than the situation of the West German government vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

[ex_banana-eater]

In fact, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 under President Andrew Jackson had nothing to do with preventing "vicious attacks on settlements."  The Cherokee Nation had long been recognized as one of the most progressive among American Indian tribes.  The 17,000 Cherokees who were subject to Jackson's forcible exile had been living not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers and tradesmen.  They resided peacefully alongside whites and often intermarried with them.  The "Trail of Tears" was the result not of self-defense but of government-sponsored racism and a desire for the undeserved.  The State of Georgia's attempt to cancel Indian land titles was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the state and in favor of Indian land owners in Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832.  President Jackson ignored the court and proceeded with the ethnic cleansing, which left approximately 4,000 dead from hunger and exposure.  So much for the rule of law.

I have a question, what gives the Indian tribes the moral right to operate an entirely collectivist society within American territory--that encouraged the banishment or killing of those who didn't share their property in the collective?

If you've heard Thomas Bowden's "The Enemy's of Christopher Columbus," he mentions that all of the Indian tribes had the chance to be sent by riverboat for their relocation Westward (which was mandatory to do because they were operating a society contrary to American government). Since they believed in a primitive superstition that travelling over water would steal their souls, they chose to walk, and therefore died in the thousands. Those who travelled in boats arrived with very few problems.

[Iakeo]

Many people on this board are Pro-Iraq War and for increased intervention in the Middle East. I have read several comments like "Lets go take down Iran" or "We should take out Saudi Arabia" or "I wish Syria was on target next."

With this in mind I have two questions:

1) What makes you think that U.S intervention would make things better?

Ask someone SPECIFICALLY WHY any "intervention" (whatever that means) would

be of value to them.

My opinion,.. surgically removing the cancer of collectivist evil from the world

when it can affect proper human trade ("the trader principle") is always a good

thing. Those who can do it, when a high enough "pain threshold" is reached for

them to be motivated TO do it, should morally do it.

If America can do it, and values doing it, then America WILL do it, regardless of

the collectivist protest of "What makes YOU so special..!?"

2) Why is it that Objectivists routinely uphold that American foreign policy is morally superior to Muslim terrorists?

"American Foreign Policy" is not a thing that the phrase "morally superior or

inferior" can be applied to. Any more than the phrase "Earthbound Brown Guys"

can have a moral quality.

That is the collectivist principle of "primacy of consciousness" applied to make a

collection of things appear to be a single thing, so that it can be attacked (or

promoted). Just because you say it's so doesn't mean that reality will change to

suit your wish.

Some acts of individual and/or groups of Americans can certainly be immoral.

ALL acts of "Muslim Terrorists" (since they are defined here AS terrorists,

where "a terrorist" is inherently evil) are immoral.

Acts are commited by individuals. Those who commit immoral acts, regardless of

their "political affiliation", are immoral.

The reasons for my questions are as follows:

Rreasons for question 1:

Vietnam. Our intervention there killed lots and lots of people....

More importantly, we are currently unable to prevent terrorists from entering via the Iraq-Syria border. We are also unable to protect Iraqi politicians and civilians from the terrorists....

Reasons for question 2:

If one is claiming to be morally superior to brutal rapists, you can't support rapists with money and weapons can you?...

We claim to be superior to Muslim terrorists...but why isn't anyone pointing out the obvious fact that many of our actions support terrorism in 2 ways:

a) Actual funding, training, and weapons selling....

B- It seems to me that several actions of the United States could actually be equated with terrorist actions. (Gee whiz)....

You should probably have asked:

• "Is killing lots of people inherently immoral?"
  
  
  
• "If you can't guarantee even relative safety for civilians in a country you've invaded, is it moral to have invaded in the first place?"
  
  
  
• "Is it moral to materially support a "bad guy" whom you can convince to control an even BADDER guy?"
  
  
  
• "What IS a terrorist act, and is there ever a moral reason to commit one?"
  

These would be more likely to illicit actually useful answers.

My last question of the day is quite simple : If Objectivists recognize that the American government is a mixed bag (philosophically speaking) with often mixed results (both good and bad) then why the blatant jingoism and pro-America drum beating? Is it any real surprise that such mixed bag philosophies are applied with often poor results?

So you would propose a "non-mixed bag", such as collectivist tyrany?

America is not a "mixed bag". It is a market (or at least more so than other

places), and collectivists value the processes, goals, and results of markets.

What do you mean by, "Is it any real surprise that such mixed bag philosophies

are applied with often poor results?"

You are confusing the "productive chaos" of the market with "the bad results" that

you have selected from the results of all the multitude of acts that constitutes the

market that America is composed of.

You look at America and see some bad results from some possibly immoral acts,

and conflate that to be "American Foreign Policy" (or more likely "American

Culture", which is the typical REAL meaning of collectivists when they say

American Foreign Policy).

A rational person sees the market of America, and strives to strengthen the

market however possible to ensure that the natural product of the market, human

production and lessening of evil (ie reality), is maximized.

A collectivist sees the market of America, and condemns the market as crushing

the human right to get an equal share regardless of contribution.

"Why are YOU so special?" is your basic comment about America.

I suggest you find the many many answers to that question.

-Iakeo

Edited March 13, 2005 by Iakeo

[Iakeo]

...

As I'm supposed to limit what I say to increasing the intellectual content of the

topic in question, I'm rather limited how to respond to this leftist screed.

My contribution to the intellectual content is this:

What are you trying to clarify?

Give it to me in one sentence. If you then want to expand that sentence into a

paragraph or two, to illustrate your points, that would be fine.

But this regurgitation of whatever-that-was is not helpful.

Thanks chief..!

-Iakeo

[Bailey]

I've read all this before, except it was published by Noam Chomsky, and parroted by Martin Sheen, John Kerry, and Joan Baez, among others, and now Biggum Chief Ward Churchill. El Salvador, still? LOLOLOLOL

[EC]

(This was in response to a deleted post made by an anti-American troll. - CF)

It was never the indians property to begin with, just because they passed through an area and occasionally set up camp in an area did not mean they owned the property. They explicitly denied property rights saying the land was owned by everybody and nobody at the same time. Unowned land cannot be stolen by anyone.

Note to mods, this (the above post) is the kind of stuff you guys should be cleaning up, people like this who try and express their opinions when they are contrary to Objectivism. If he wants to understand how Objectivism explains what has been stated previously he should ask questions to that end, not make unsupported statements of his opinions.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Capitalism Forever

[Styles2112]

Rational one, What, EXACTLY, is ownership then? They lived on that land (regardless of moving around on it.), used it's resources, and it was there home. Are you saying that if you had 500,000 acres that you would not move around on it? Especially to protect it's borders? Just because it's a collectivist society, does not mean they do not own the land that they use (and that no one used before them.) You are saying that, because we saw them as not having ownership (despite living on that land for how many years, and living off of it), that gave us the moral right to slaughter them, tag them, and move them?

(Asking this question, by the way, does not make me an "Anti-American Troll." I am interested in the answer, whether I agree with it or not.)

[AisA]

Rational one, What, EXACTLY, is ownership then? 

I know this question is directed at RO, but allow me to answer also.

Ownership is the exclusive right to determine the use and disposal of the property in question. Property is the product of human effort and, properly, belongs to its creator, unless they choose to sell or trade the property.

Following this principle, land per se is not anyone's creation and therefore cannot be claimed as property. Property rights in otherwise unowned land can only be claimed by applying human effort to transform the land into something new, i.e. by adding something such that what we have is more than mere land. For instance, making a defined section of land productive, either by farming, grazing, mining, manufacturing, etc. transforms it into a productive asset, which, properly, belongs to its creator.

What, then, did the Indians do to qualify as owners of the land? What did they add that transformed the land into something more than mere land?

Exploring the land, hunting its animals, picking its fruits and berries adds nothing and does nothing to change the land into something that can be owned.

They lived on that land (regardless of moving around on it.), used it's resources, and it was there home.

They lived on portions of the land. And according to the principles above, one can make a case that they could claim the ground under their tee-pee as property on the basis that it now constituted the foundation of their homes. However, one cannot stretch that to include the hundreds of thousands of square miles surrounding one's home.

  Are you saying that if you had 500,000 acres that you would not move around on it? Especially to protect it's borders?  Just because it's a collectivist society, does not mean they do not own the land that they use (and that no one used before them.)

But how did they use it? I use the atmosphere in the sense that I breath it, yet I cannot claim to own it.

You are saying that, because we saw them as not having ownership (despite living on that land for how many years, and living off of it), that gave us the moral right to slaughter them, tag them, and move them?

No, the right that we had was to settle in these areas and make them productive by farming, building communities, etc. This does not mean we had the right to initiate force against existing Indian communities. We did not have the right to seize their tents or destroy whatever other dwellings they had.

However, the Indian's position was that vast territories belonged to them by "tradition" or because they were the first to see it or live on some portion of it. Furthermore, they asserted (some of them did, anyway) the right to kill any white man that crossed into these territories without permission.

This is an untenable position. You cannot set foot on a continent and declare ownership of it merely because you got there first.

[Styles2112]

Exploring the land, hunting its animals, picking its fruits and berries adds nothing and does nothing to change the land into something that can be owned.

I can see your point here, but I disagree. I think the continued settlement (regardless if it's only seasonal) qualifies for ownership. I was also under the impression that they, too, farmed the land. Maybe, I was wrong, but I thought I had read that somewhere.

No, the right that we had was to settle in these areas and make them productive by farming, building communities, etc.  This does not mean we had the right to initiate force against existing Indian communities.  We did not have the right to seize their tents or destroy whatever other dwellings they had.

I agree. However, does the man in Montana who "owns" 10 miles worth of land, open to having his land taken because he is not using (in anyway, shape or form) that land?

However, the Indian's position was that vast territories belonged to them by "tradition" or because they were the first to see it or live on some portion of it.  Furthermore, they asserted (some of them did, anyway) the right to kill any white man that crossed into these territories without permission.

I agree with you here as well, with a slight differation. I think that had the Native Americans been worried about LOSING land, they might have had set boundries drawn up. It would seem to me that they had not expecting a conquering nation to come in and settle on their lands (used by them for hundreds of years). Had set boundries been made, it would have been easier to sell, or trade.

This is an untenable position.  You cannot set foot on a continent and declare ownership of it merely because you got there first.

Then how else do you claim unowned land? I see what you mean about claiming land by "tradition," but the land they lived on...well isn't possession 9/10ths of the law in that case?

Thanks for a well written and thought-out reply. Your stance was a bit clearer to me in this one than was in previous posts.

[EC]

First AisA gave an excellent responce that I fully confer with, so I'll leave it at that.

Second though, the Anti-American Troll comments just had me laughing harder than anything I've ever seen on this forum, I still have a big smile on my face. Sorry Styles I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I just think it's funny as hell. And I could never explain this to anyone outside this forum either. Damn!