I think he sets the bar too high. Certainly, if my family’s slaves sued for damages, that would be entitled to damages but I do not think it negates the land owners title to the property. Clearly, the land is owned, even if it is being worked by captive laborers. His example might work for truly unowned land, such as the vast federal lands in the west. However, there was not much slave labor used out in Indian Territory or other western lands. I still strongly disagree with their use of inherited debts, and I dont think I can get around that.
Under what authority?
So if I borrow money, I have committed an offense? I don’t get it.
If you don’t pay it back, yes. And by your logic, your children as well, having benefited from the resources you were able to devote to them rather than towards payment of debt.
Frankly, I don’t know what can be done today. The people who should have paid for their crimes are all dead. Though some of the slave owners, like the honorable thomas jefferson, are considered heroes, which is a pretty bad joke…
Is it ? The argument is that slave owners did not originally homestead the land, the slaves did.
Well, I confess total ignorance about the historical facts. I was agreeing with the theoretical considerations, but I don’t know how they would play out in practice.
I’m not sure that Block is putting it in terms of inherited debts, but in terms of who has legitimate title to property.
This is really fun stuff. I’m going to work on Walter Block’s house. Then, I’ll leave the bill in testament to my child. It can pass thru several generations, accruing interest, and then my descendants can present it as a lien against whoever owns the house at the time, particularly if it’s his grandkids. I’m sure Block would be pleased with this validation of his theory.
You’ve said that before, but I disagree. Being a slave owner isnt enough to make me dislike a historical figure.
Contrary to movies like Roots, many slave owners were out working in the same fields with their slaves. Only a handful of rich planters could kick back and do nothing.
Absolutely.
That article is terrible. No references whatsoever to back up his interpretation. If you learn something about native justice you will probably find that it is an improvement over what we have. However, my view on land is based on the fact that they sold land to colonists to which they never did anything that qualifies as homesteading. That has nothing to do with property rights. Maybe in some narrow cases they have valid complaints, but they did not consult The Ethics of Liberty before lodging their complaints.
In any case, they’ve already gotten far more worth in taxed loot than they deserve.
Of course, if they are willing to give up their illegitimately occupied “reservations”, I’ll gladly hear them out.
Hold your horses! Not so fast, there, partner.
Now I have to ask: Who gets to choose the arbitrator in such a dispute?
The point being: slavery is a violation of freedom which can make it impossible for the slave to afford his own defence. Libertarian justice may not be a possibility because libertarian justice assumes that all parties voluntarily chose to step on the jurisdiction in question. That is not the case with slavery. Saying that the slave is entitled to damages in tort is as meaningful as saying a murdered man is entitled to reparations so long as he can rise from the dead.
Regardless, nobody´s opinion matters much on this fine detail of law. What will matter is what the pitch-fork weilding and dollar-spending masses want. They are the ones who will dictate our conduct.
yeaper.
Nice article, Angurse.