What is the Austrian School’s position on land rights with respect to the Native American peoples?
There is no, nor can’t there be, an Austrian School’s position on this. But, the (hasty) libertarian position would be that the Native American’s deserve to have their land returned to them.
They rejected human ownership. They have no right to anything according to their own pagan religion.
So they do not have a concept of “owning” the land, since the land to them is sacred. Yet, they do have a concept of how to take care of the land. If some individual does not understand the concept of land rights, does that mean she should not have those rights?
Yes, it means that they should not be whining later that they own it. They need to stfu and take their own pill.
Reparations by Walter Block
The final lecture in a series of ten, presented at the “Radical Austrianism, Radical Libertarianism” seminar, hosted by the Mises Institute. Recorded 07/29/2005 [1:22:02]
10. THE PROBLEM OF LAND THEFT by Murray N. Rothbard
[:)]
The following discussion is from another forum, where the same topic came up:###
Quote:
Quote:
It takes a lot of alteration to get from this..:
..to this:
( link )
Quote:
| In terms of agriculture, amelioration includes: * Hydrological improvement (drainage, irrigation, leaching of saline soils, landslide and flood control) * Soil improvement (fertilization, establishment of proper chemical balance). * Soil stabilization/erosion control * Road construction * Afforestation, as a means for both water conservation and land protection against wind erosion (shelterbelts) [..] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_improvement |
|---|
So you see, a lot needs to be altered before you can create any crops. And so, the land in the second picture is in active use. This includes [water, minerals, surface, etc], all of which have been altered for production.
If you can use the airspace above or the ground below it without damaging the property that is in active use, then there is no problem.
Quote:
I would say hunting and gathering are examples of repeated one-time use instead of active alteration.
Quote:
| 1.3 Production and Technology Man is capable of producing things and of developing technology. Animals live a mostly consuming life. They eat something and diminish the amount of things that are available on earth, but they rarely set out to increase the future amount of things available to them. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh…5&postcount=55 |
|---|
For example, what if some other tribe came and hunted on the same grounds, or plucked from the same trees? It’s hard to see how one tribe has any more right than the other. So it seems that there should be no problem with actually setting out and improving on the land, for production.
Now, in some sense you might say that the hunters are like fisher-men. They don’t over-hunt so that the population of prey remains affluent. But homesteading a little plot here and there probably doesn’t effect the hunters at all, and over time the hunters can learn from the settlers and so there doesn’t have to be a conflict at all.
But yes, it is a tricky situation, particularly when a lot of settlers come in a short amount of time. I do think the people who improve on the land have the upper hand though.
Quote:
No,
Hunters and gatherers certainly alter things. They pluck fruits and nuts and they hunt animals. Those fruits, nuts and animals then belong to them. But the fruits, nuts and animals that they haven’t plucked or hunted are not theirs; they should be free to be plucked and hunted by anyone.
If I pluck an apple from an unowned tree, is it now my tree? No, it is only my apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator Nothing could be more subjective than “improving” the land. To quote the immortal Ricky Watters, for who, for what? |
|---|
For personal use, which indeed is valued subjectively. But when we are talking about the Neolithic Revolution and the first agrarians, then more food is certainly better than less food.
But once people can produce more than they need for food, then surpluses can be traded on the market and the division of labor can come about. At this point people are producing not only for themselves but for others too. And not what they like, but specifically what they think others will like.
Thats not true.
First of all, “they” constitute a large number scattered across very different locales, with varying ideas about property, second “they” did believe in some forms of property rights.
One of his most laughable positions. I lost alot of respect for his theories after reading that one. We can presume that Block probably approves of Mugabe’s land reform.
But to get to the point of the thread, most libertarians will probably say you shouldnt ‘steal their land’. But this argument reminds me of immigration restriction/border security advocates. Was the whole of the New World ‘their’ land? Had they ‘homesteaded’ the whole lot of every part of it? (nevermind they had no concept of private property) No, in fact they had homesteaded very little of it - but this wont stop some libertarians from telling you that whitey needs to move back to the old world to satisfy the ridiculous Blockian notion of ‘justice’.
what do you think Block says in the talk ?
I don’t think libertarians say that the whole of the new world was homestead, so your post is just one big straw man.
Ok to clarify he has written several pieces about reparations/land reform. Those are what I was referring to as silly. I didnt listen to the talk because I dont have to; I already know what his position is. Basically, since my great-great-great-great grandfather owned about 25 slaves - fast forward to today - me, who has never owned a slave, now owes their descendants (who were never slaves themselves) money. I dont think so.
No, but ‘they’ (yes, a strawman) almost never elaborate on the point either.
strawman
its not about whether you’ve ever owned slaves. but whether you presently own property that can be proven to have been stolen and to have a more rightful owner
How is it a strawman? He himself used a near identical example to prove that I ought to owe ‘back wages’.
This isn’t his contention at all. Think about it after your hissy fit.
Dont know, because I didnt listen to that talk. But hes written on the topic on more than one occasion, and that is an accurate example of his line of thinking.
Because?
Because?
I don’t see how strong adherance to the non-aggression principle would lead to supporting anything Mugabe has done.
Colonial European-Americans did a lot of horrible things. I’ve never so much as thought about enslaving or displacing anyone. Reparations could be made if you have some actual evidence of ownership by a descendant of the displaced. Native American Indians did not use the land in a way consistent with “homesteading all of it”. The bolded is tripe, and I have no clue what you mean by it.
Why don’t you try to know what you are talking about before you make yourself look more stupid, comrade. What you claim to be accurate is patently inaccurate as anyone would see from a quick look at the actual writing.
Nice to see that you are able to “read” and audio file. Anyway, I suggest you listen to audio file.
This isn’t Block’s position.
That’s not Block’s position. You would only owe reparations if you lived on land that the slaves worked on. I suggest you listen to the audio file, so that you do not come off as ignorant.