You don’t. You can fight and die with the primitives if you want.
But is there any reason at all that I should care about what this impartial judge thinks? I’m just trying to understand why you would first come out in defense of actions that I and most people think are ghastly, and then when pressed, retreat to the position that we can’t possibly say anything about what anyone does because of cultural relativism. You can’t argue that what these people did was acceptable, and simultaneously argue that we are in no position to say anything about their actions. It’s internally inconsistent. So either you have to come up with some standard by which we can justify the actions of people who would use force against non-market communities, or you have to admit that your defense of them was ill-advised, because you can’t possibly offer such a defense in light of cultural relativism.
And what is an impartial judge anyway, if there’s no objective standard ?
ps: Is Stranger a troll ?
Alright, here’s how things stand.
Mine company decides to move in to a territory populated by primitive tribes. It builds a road. The primitives think nothing of it. They find it curious, and go on with their primitive activities. Then it builds a mine and brings in workers to operate it. The primitives panic, think that the smoke is an evil omen, and attack the mine killing all the laborers on site.
What is the mining company to do? What difference is there between the primitive tribes and a pack of rabid wolves? It is purely a threat that must be contained.
Now you are claiming that the primitives own the land. Note that you are claiming that, the primitives themselves don’t understand anything about any of this stuff. So you are claiming your right to own the primitives. Why would any judge protect this claim?
I guess the “primitives” did it, huh ?
Sorry, but I don’t know how to put the quote from another post in the box:
“Now you are claiming that the primitives own the land. Note that you are claiming that, the primitives themselves don’t understand anything about any of this stuff. So you are claiming your right to own the primitives. Why would any judge protect this claim?”
-Stranger
I don’t think someone defending another’s claim is “claiming /a\ right to own” the one being defended, even in the case of serving as another’s mouthpiece, where both parties are willing.
Please allow me to substitute some terms into your statement. You may find this argument to be incorrect, but it occurred to me in this way. I’ve changed the intent of the “own” phrase just remarked upon to more accurately reflect what I believe would have been more reasonable, but not necessarily correct:
Now my lawyer is claiming that I am innocent. Note that the lawyer is claiming that; I myself don’t understand anything about any of this stuff. So the lawyer is claiming the responsibility of defending my actions. Why would any judge protect the lawyer’s claim to do such?
Our system of law, it seems, would not for its own sake be able to defend the theft of land of a people that have inhabited it for as long as we have known. Even if in their society it is okay to take land by force, for us to do the same would be a wrong, as we would have to adopt a primitive reckoning of the situation, in which their primitiveness is a primary motivation of our actions against them.
On the same token, but opposite side, if we are able to reckon primitively as they do and still take their land by their rules, what harm is done? We followed their rules and still won. However, if we were to treat others based only on their rules with ignorance of ours in these situations, do we not also lose?
Thus, if we believe ourselves to be superior in any way (i.e. on the right track), we must abide by our own standards, as abandoning them for any thing good or bad would reveal that we were not superior in that way after all, I believe.
I trust you will correct me if I am wrong.
The lawyer isn’t making a claim on his own. You hired the lawyer to speak for you in court, and you are standing there with him as your own man.
Children don’t hire lawyers.
The problem is that you are framing the argument in loaded terms. Land is not being stolen unless someone has a right to it. Primitives do not own the land they use, they merely occupy it, much like the state occupies public property. Whatever means are used to establish a private claim upon these goods is not theft, as it is not owned, but liberation of property.
Well well. Except you always claim that the state can sell what they ‘own’ and keep the money. That would be just one more contradiction affecting your non-libertarian theory. But never mind.
That would be in fact liberating the property they occupy. Why not reward those who dare it?
I’m sorry but I still don’t know how to quote.
Stranger,
If the lawyer volunteered to defend me pro bono, it would fall further into the example provided above, although I don’t want to take something imaginary too far, before we know it there could be a giant sea monster somewhere in this example.
On the other topic: then what’s the difference between occupying land and owning land, when there is no other possible claim to ownership? I guess the occupiers would have to be registered with some authority. But if the authority isn’t what we would put on the level of “government”, would you say that they never owned the land they lived on or had any claim to ownership? If not them, then who? Is it possible for the land to belong to nature, and yet have to run off the human residents by force to take possession?
he would still need to appear in court with you and not simply in your name, and thus would still need your approval.
A private property title.
Either ‘primitives’ and government own their things, in which case their property rights must be respected, or they don’t own their things, and so they’re fair game.
For some weird reason you think that politicians and cops deserve to keep their loot, while ‘primitives’ can be treated as non-humans. What’s the justification for your double standard ?
It seems that government is entitled to keep ‘its’ property because they have guns. Your non-libertarian legal theory can be summed up as “might makes right”, correct ?
My theory is cooperation makes wealth. If bribing cops and politicians means they will give up control of valuable resources, then that is much better than fighting them in a pointless frontal assault on their power in the name of some fairytale moral principle.
You can similarly bribe primitive tribes, so extermination is never really necessary unless they have committed to go to war against you.
That’s not ‘your’ theory. That’s a general principle which you can acknowledge or not.
Why should they ? Can’t you see that what you say is nonsense ? If politicians ‘own’ valuable resources they won’t give them to you because you pay a bribe - they are not that stupid.
I guess your nonsensical “might makes right” amoral principle is much better.
I couldn’t think of why I would turn down a lawyer that is offering to help me in a system I know nothing or very little about, and if he’s volunteering, I don’t see why he would suddenly be unwilling to appear in court with me.
On the second point, I’m not sure you understood what I meant in the paragraph that I wrote before. But to clarify what you’re saying, do you believe that when someone is living on land that there is no document supporting the ownership thereof, in a lack of authority to give a document supporting the ownership thereof, that the land is not owned by anyone, when other similar peoples do recognize the sovereignty of ownership? Please follow me here because I think I lost you in my last comment, and there are a lot of interesting questions that this stance would give rise to, if you follow at least one of the possible tracks.
What, in your view, would be equivalent to a private property title in a society lacking such but still maintaining private property? Would a house built on a clearly defined tract of land (e.g. bounded by man-made canals) constitute ownership? Surely it would at least constitute ownership of the house and canals, as these were built and not simply formed through one of nature’s phenomena. How about primitive markings on a rock that roughly translates to: “The territory around this rock measuring to ~20m extent belongs to Jimba”? Or does it have to be written in specific language on a specific type of paper and sealed by a certain kind of person? What if aliens were to come to Earth and claim that because we lack the “(whatever aliens use to denote private property)”, us humans despite our prior beliefs own none of the Earth or its resources (including the works of our own hands) and must vacate or risk being destroyed (can you feel the giant sea monster getting closer to joining our story?). By your measure, if I understand you correctly, we would have no rightful claim to the land we thought was ours, and the folk song, “This Land Is Your Land”, would prove to be a clumsily written misinterpretation of intergalactic law.
But no matter how many questions I ask, the only real question that I would like an answer to is: where do we agree?
They don’t own it - they occupy it. That’s why privatizations often involve a lot of bribes. If the market has determined that it is better for politicians to have the money instead of controlling the asset, then so be it.
The market hasn’t, as governments are extra-market entities.
You are not focusing on the matter of the debate. We are not arguing whether other societies’ private property titles are valid. That is moot. If something is privately owned, then using force to expropriate it is going to complicate matters more so than just buying it from this person.
What we are debating is whether we can force out societies that don’t practice private property. They simply reject the notion that a farm or a house can be privately owned (and, most probably, are not able to produce houses or farms). Under universal principles of justice, this practice is injurious and provides no claim to the use of any resource whatsoever to anyone. Forcing out a society that occupies resources under such rules does not violate anyone’s rights as private individuals.
The politician is a private entity, and he concluded a market with whoever bought the government’s asset.
If they don’t own it, why should they receive any money for it ? Are they squatters ? If they are squatters surely they must be kicked out ?