Past property theft/agression and the modern implications

Economics Political Theory
1

Often in my various online discussions, someone will bring up the point that many current claims on land were derived from past warfare, theft, etc, and therefore illegitimate. I’d like to hear some of your thoughts on this.

To me, there has to be some kind of cut off point. For example, if, two hundred years ago, someone forced someone else off of thier land and claimed it illegitimately. Then, through various later voluntary trades, I came to own it. Does the great-great-great-great-grandchild of the original owner who was agressed against have any claim to the land or property?

Saying that they do has some problematic implications. One is that we have to infer that all the person’s ancestors between the original victim and the living ones would have decided to pass on the property to thier children rather than do something else with it. This is unknowable, and probably has no evidence to it as the interm ancestors would not have made any contracts (e.g. wills) that stipulated that the property should be passed on to thier children. That inheritance given to biological children is generally a custom, but is not a logical certainty.

Now if you had a situation where a dead ancestor had his property stolen, and left a will that said “This property, if recovered should be passed onto my grandson”, then there may be a case. However, lacking such documentation, I have to assume that the use-rights the original, legitimate owner had expired with them, the property reverted to unowned status, and was re-homesteaded by someone down the line, establishing a current, legitimate, ownership.

This obviously has implications for situations like the agression against Native Americans in the 18th and 19th century, and in fact most contested lands at all. Some will posit that all land and property ownership in inherently based in violence, but this begs the question of whether “the son is guilty for the sins of the father”?

Thoughts?

2

The point is that the system itself is built on corruption and coercion. As much as you want to think it’s peaceful now (it’s not, stop listenting to american propaganda), there are scant claims to land in this world that were not originally illegitimate.

If you take my home, and then give my grandson a million $ after I die, you are still a theif, and your inheritors are still recipients of stolen property.

3

Where a clear claim exists, title should be reversed. Where a less than clear claim exists, negotiation seems prudent.

Where no meaningful claim exists, ie. “I am Indian and Indians once lived here.” then all we can do is strive to be better in the future.

To correct past injustices without proper justice would be the creation of more injustice.

Two asides.

  1. The myth that native cultures had no conception of property is false. They simply had a different conception. Most understood homesteading and scarcity.

  2. Anachronists who will say property is the problem because of what happened to groups like the plains indians, are basically making an argument like, “someone once stole food, therefore food is bad.” It’s a non sequitur.

4

Property stolen in the past is still stolen. The rightful owners and/or their decendents still have claims on the property and if proven valid should receive the property even to the detriment of the current owners who thought they were getting the property legally. Those owners now have claims on the previous owners from whom they acquired the property.

Note the “if proven valid” condition. As time passes it is harder to establish these claims. And also to prove a claim as valid the one size fits all-winner take all current political-injustice system is probably not a good place to determine the validity of these claims as they have a huge interest in keeping their current high paying jobs most likely paid by the current owners. This must be done in the market place by arbitrators who are at the discression of the market.

Also note that this is not at all simple. If I have unknowingly purchased your property and improved it, then I will want to be compensated for the changes and if not will either move or destroy the changes upon transfer. So the rightful owner will have to deal with this condition when they claim the property. And in most of these cases one of the parties can be bought off.

5

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

  • As much as you want to think it’s peaceful now (it’s not, stop listenting to american propaganda), there are scant claims to land in this world that were not originally illegitimate.

Firstly, American Propaganda? Where does this enter into it? I’m talking about general concepts of how property rights transfer between people over time, and the implications that has for past theft, not any specific instance that would involve what you’re talking about. Secondly, I guess the real point I’m getting at here is how the illegeitimacy transfers through time.

Bogart:

Very well put. I understand that, in practical application, the restitution, if any, would be decided by whoever is arbitrating the dispute. And also that subsequent improvements on the property should be included in the consideration. I guess what I’m interested in is thinking about how someone in such an arbitration would go about establishing the right to an heir. Is there any logical basis that, barring a will or some other contract, that biological heirs have a right to the property of thier ancestors?

I mean, just as I’m thinking about this, what’s stopping someone from, say, shooting someone, stealing thier car, and, lacking an explicit will, saying that they homesteaded a car who’s use-rights had expired with the death of the original owner? Obviously they would still be guilty for the murder itself, but what of the car?

6

Firstly, American Propaganda? Where does this enter into it?

Sorry, I guess that came out wrong. I wasn’t referring to you in particular, just the sentiment that companies are not still violently putting down the people of the world (either directly, or more commonly indirectly by buying out members of the national governments).