No, this matter allows us to discuss natural rights, and NO I don’t want to return to such primitive society (this is not the Marxist ideal society). I will not take the ridiculous axiom that explain natural rights (life and liberty) by an non-natural one (property).
Because you clearly demonstrate that you do not know your country’s history.
Comrade, that isn’t proof, it sounds like sensationalism. My school told me a similar line about the native people living in a natural “eden” without property as well - lies. Please give the full report you said you could provide, further the fact that the indian only divides his kill with other tribemembers disputes the all have the same rights/treatment jabber.
So are you refining your argument to private property over land now, as opposed to all property? If so - prove it, if not - prove it. I can provide data proving the existence of villages, you are going to have to prove how they dont constitute property.
Give the paper you said you had.
Many other documents comprove what is writen in this panflet.
We study it here, since we are 6 or 7 years old, it is perfectely logical that we know it better than a foreigner. What do you know of Brazil’s history?
The most primitive are the most natural because they have been less changed by external causes. such as other unnatural societies.
What is unnatural is your stupidity so far. You’ve not - by a long shot - proven that property is “unnatural” except to assert that humans in primitive societies lacked property, which is, sorry to say, pure garbage. Natural = within the the being’s nature, not within some primitive state of subsistence. Learn English, learn what the concept is about, rather than regurgitating fallacies. As creatures evolve, adapt &c. so does their nature, so do the things within that nature. You adhere to some half-assed static concept that conflates natural with primitive, undisturbed &c. My how crankish.
Awesome. However, they don’t count as proof if they are using the pamphlet as a source.
And there are foreigners with doctorates specifically in Brazilian history who could teach every one of those classes. It’s wonderful that you study history, and have been since you were young. Really. That has no bearing on the claim that you, as a Brazilian, know more about Brazil’s history than any foreigner.
Please define natural in the context you are using. i would argue that there is nothing unnatural, as everyone is part of nature. A skyscraper is no more unnatural than a bee hive.
You don’t know unless you ask, but instead you said, " Maybe I know of it, but I doubt others who agree with you (wilderness, Anarchist Cain, ect) have even heard of it, let alone your opponents."
So if you weren’t so arrogant you would have asked instead of making an unfounded assertion.
Arrogance. As if you know how much I’ve read or deliberated upon subjects. You even said before, “I would hope that I would know more if I study more and read more.”
I passed that off as a general statement for any one person, but now I see your bloated with an ego that needs to be grounded with reality. You have no idea who I am to make any such statements.
So he achieved something and shared it. How could he share something that he doesn’t have to begin with?
And those “external causes” are of nature. If you want to discuss what’s good and bad, then that’s a whole other topic.
I have a book in portugues, what is it good for you?
I haven’t been able to find any other document in english, here is another one in portuguese:
"A História dos Índios
A expressão descobrimento do Brasil; tornou-se comum nos livros de história. Ela se refere ao fato de os portugueses terem encontrado uma terra que era até então desconhecida dos europeus. Mas o Brasil não era uma terra desconhecida e sem donos! Ela era habitada e sua posse distribuída entre diversos grupos entre diversos grupos indígenas que a ocupavam! “”““A idéia de posse e propriedade dos indígenas logicamente não é a mesma da dos portugueses, não tem o mesmo sentido o de propriedade privada. A posse era coletiva””“”, isto é, não havia um pedaço de terra para cada um ou para cada família, as vastas regiões do Brasil eram ocupadas por nações e tribos. Havia limites mais ou menos estabelecidos, mas não definidos. As tribos mudavam de lugar de acordo com sua necessidade. A presença portuguesa foi então uma ocupação, pois julgavam os povos não civilizados como desprovidos dos direitos que eles europeus tinham. Os europeus se julgavam os donos da civilização e das leis, todos os outros povos deveriam portanto, reger-se pelas normas e leis vigentes na Europa (será que isso mudou hoje em dia ou respeitamos o modo de vida diferente de outras culturas?) Há cinco séculos, os portugueses chegaram ao litoral brasileiro, dando início ao processo de migração que se estenderia até o inicio do século XX, e pouco a pouco foram estabelecendo-se nas terras que eram ocupadas pelos povos indígenas. Com os índios civilizados e amigos os portugueses formaram uma nova etnia: os mamelucos."
If I may translate only the important part, “”““The ideas the indians had of possession and property was different than the ones the Portuguese had, neither has the same sense of private property. The possession was collective””“” here it is. Either being enought for you or not I will not bring more evidence that thier society had no property, I will call it truth, and if you think it isn’t please prove it (tip: you may try, but won’t make it).
No, what I meant is Rousseau demonstrates that the firsth right of property ever stablished, was the property over land. The other ideas of property came after it.
I don’t have a scanner, this last text I presented comes from http://www.colegioame.com.br/arq/A_Historia_dos_Indios_(HISTORIA_DO_BRASIL).doc, in portuguese so I guess you won’t understand a thing either way. Any history book on brasilian indians can confirm that.
No they aren’t. The portuguese weren’t a “natural cause” that changed the indians society because they weren’t natural. Do you think that technology is natural? It is artificial.
This is not helping… here is a document, the LAST one i will give to prove this, because your ceticism should not be my problem:
http://www.colegioame.com.br/arq/A_Historia_dos_Indios_(HISTORIA_DO_BRASIL).doc
Do you have the doctorate in Brazilian history? Either way a normal brazilian should know more of brazilian’s history than a normal american, and a normal american should know more of the USA’s history than a normal brazilian, this is called logic.
natural is something that is verified without any social (from unnatural societies) and human (unnatural human) intervention, the natural society would be the original one, collective, propertyless, without technology, state and government. the natural man would be the man that lives in a natural society.
not thats called wishful thinking
who would wish be such a wretch of a creature?. even your indian tribes suffered poverty, but not so great as that of the ‘natural’ person that you imagine.
Your lack of respect also seems very unnatural to me. the human “being’s nature” has two parts: 1-fixed one (natural) 2- changable one (social), the firsth one is fixed (life and liberty) while the second (with or without property) comes from the society. the most primitive societies are the most natural ones, and we don’t have property there, so the “natural human nature” what is trully within the being’s nature IN nature does NOT include property.
Yes. It is natural for technology, technology is not abnormal or a perversion. Material culture (any culture) is natural for each person because without it they would die. Even if Homo sapiens (doesn’t have to have the added sapiens) pick up a rock or stick, their will is working through that material object. Their will is transferred into that object when in use. I shake a stick, the stick moves. It is mine, unless, I want to share that stick. I’m not arguing against sharing, but the physics of my will into a stick is obvious. The universe is natural. This is all nature. An object you deem “artificial” is still here in nature. It is still natural. Unless the object is a perversion of nature, something at odds and against nature, it is still a natural occurrence, but more categorically a disease, etc… Now you want to use the term “artificial”. Fine. But it’s your definition of “artificial” that asserts distortions. First you would need to understand what “natural” means in natural rights. Not in the way you are attempting to bring in another term “artificial”, which this term isn’t a term that correctly fits into the concept of natural as in natural rights. So it’s not your term that I need to deny, it’s the very definition and usage of that term, artificial, as you are inaccurately applying a term “artificial” that has nothing to do with the concept natural when it comes to natural rights. You are making a category error. As hashem said further up in the thread, property denotes material objects, including my body. Are you denying that a person can justly use a bucket?
@Stephen Forde,
Off the top of your head, what have you by Murray Rothbard? Maybe I haven’t read more than you, but I think I’ve read enough by him to get a feel for the basis of his arguments.
For me, its:
The Ethics of Liberty 5 times
For a New Liberty 6 times
What has Government Done to Our Money 2 times
The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar 2 times
The Case Against the Fed
The first dozen pages from Economic Though Before Adam Smith
The first 10 chapters from the Concieved in Liberty volumes
The first 17 chapters of Man, Economy, State
At least 7 articles by him at LRC
Everything from the first page of his complete bibliography at Mises.org
2 essays from Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays
I have read more by him that I can’t think of off the top of my head, but the list is what I’ve read by him only.
Wow. I know they are interesting books to read…but geez.
Hilarously, it shows (repeatedly) that they did have property.
“Mas o Brasil não era uma terra desconhecida e sem donos!”
And this paper confirms it - native Brazilians established property rights over land! As well as weapons, tools, musical instruments, food, costumes, etc…
“A posse era coletiva, isto é, não havia um pedaço de terra para cada um ou para cada família, as vastas regiões do Brasil eram ocupadas por nações e tribos. Havia limites mais ou menos estabelecidos, mas não definidos.”
Basically they lived in little communal villages much like the Indians of the southeast U.S. Nothing special, different than the European customs yes, but property and ownership rights where there nonetheless.
Also, there isn’t any author or citations listed, please provide some.