Well hold on a minute. Before it sounded like you were arguing in favor of forcefully removing non-market communities for their land. Now you’re arguing that people have a right to defend property that they homesteaded without any objection. Those are categorically different scenarios. Are you taking back your earlier argument?
Begs the question that the government owned it in the first place, and that said politician had any sort of authority whatsoever. Also, given how the asset was acquired originally and with what it was acquired, clearly it’s indefensible to even consider that a market transaction.
Oh, come on. Now you’re just nitpicking with me. You very well know what’s meant. You cannot split people up into different classes in the way you are without engaging in arbitrary hypocrisy. The people in question most certainly are human beings, despite how “inferior” you may think they are relative to other groups of human beings. If you want to classify them as “subhuman”, you’ve left rational discourse.
A legal private property title is not necessarily the same thing as a legitimate property right based on libertarian theory of just aquisition. You’re essentially purging the libertarian theory of just aquisition to uphold your personal preferance for land theft, buttressed by white-nationalist-esq notions about race and culture. I find it to be rather sickening.
This is a genuine question, assuming that these primitives didn’t have the capability for reason (and I think that they do) would they still have rights according to libertarian theory?
If they had no capacity for deliberative reasoning, no (it’d be hypocritical to refuse to recognize rights in animals due to a lack of rationality but not in so-called humans who did not possess the potential for it.) But it is one thing to say they lack this entirely, and another to say they have the latent potential but simply have not made use of it. I see no reason why primitives should be seen as incapable of reasoning.
-Jon
Well that’s basically what I was thinking.
But let’s assume that they have the latent capacity and don’t make use of it? Are they then not essentially functioning as animals? Don’t get me wrong I don’t support killing them off because I don’t think any of them fall into that category.
For goodness sake, there are no human beings on the entire planet who do not have a capacity for deliberative reasoning, nor have there ever been such human beings over the entire course of recorded history!
Indeed. Hence, “so-called”.
I don’t think so. It depends on how they are conducting themselves - are they aggressing? In that case, use of force against them would be mandated. Or are they simply less developed? Well, this would mandate treating them differently than one would treat one’s peers, and perhaps closer to how one would treat a child. They wouldn’t be on the level of animals, however, unless they were utterly devoid of the capacity to reason. Most primitives are, to my knowledge, abler than the impaired in utilizing deliberative reasoning, and if the former are to be granted rights then so are the latter, as in both cases it is capacity for rationality that matters.
-Jon
I dunno about mandated…You don’t have to defend yourself.
But how do we treat children?
Don’t we treat orphans differently than children with parents? (Only one I’m allowed to take home with me)
Why shouldn’t they? Someone wants to give them money, they want to take the money, according to libertarian principles this is purely voluntary.
Do you have any idea what it would cost to kick them out? It’s much better to bribe them.
They are the same. You’re totally confused about everything.
According to libertarian principles, if somebody receives a payment for some asset, it’s because this somebody was the owner of the asset. So, if politicians get to sell ‘public’ property and keep the money, that means they owned the assets. At this point, I’m not sure why this is relevant, though.
No. Do you ?
As I said, IF they control a valuable asset they WON’T trade it for some bribes. It wouldn’t make economic sense, from their point of view. Yours is wishful thinking.
That’s not how a bribe works. The politician is taking money in exchange for his cooperation in transferring control of the asset to private ownership. The fact that the bribe may be very small compared to the value of the asset implies that the politician’s control of it is very tenuous.
Just as I thought, you’re debating upon the basis of fairytale morality with no comprehension of what materially follows from your principles.
Here’s a best case scenario: you try to evict the state from anything it owns, they put you in jail for a couple of years. Amount of good done: none.
And what are we supposed to do if they have not developed this capacity?
nothing?
This whole question seems to be absurd. What are we supposed to do if red is blue? A human being has the capability for reasoning, because it is exactly this capability that the human species developed to differentiate itself from other species. Humans special capability is reasoning. You are trying rethoric tricks.
Your argument is like saying, what if a rock is not made of stone? A rock is made of stone, else it would not be a rock. what if a flea can not jump high? What if a fish can not breath under water?
My wife works for over 25 years with physical and mental disabled people. I would have to see the first one yet that is not capable of deliberate reasoning. Not that their capabilities are not limited, but, they are able to use their brains for reasoning, trust me.
Well, first the difference between a pack of wolves and a primitive tribe is that they are different species. The tribe consist out of humans and therefor they have a natural right to own their property with respect to fellow members of the species.
Now to your example. On the basis that one ownes himself and everything he puts energy(labor) into - and the item he puts labor into is not rightfully owned by someone else- the mining company first has to make sure it does not aggress against the property rights of the tribe (i.e. individual tribesmen).
From the miners perspective it does not make any difference if the counterpart has no concept of property rights when it comes to aggression.
So, step one for the miners is to find out if the tribe cares to have them build a road. If they don’t the miners can build.
If they do, the miners need to find out if individual tribesmen really own the land the road should be build on. What is the criteria for ownership of land? The use of it, right? Does tribesmen use the land? What means use? Use means putting labor into the land or the environment. This includes hunting, gathering, farming, terraforming etc. If the tribemen use the land, they own it. Because they own it, building a road by the mining company would be an aggression and therefor a crime. End of the idea of building a mine -unless the mining co is willing to commit a crime. If the tribesmen do not own the land, by the definition above, than the mining co is free to build a road.
Same procedure for the mine itself.
Given the mining co has acted rightly to the point it starts working the mine, it owns the road and the mine. At this point the attack of tribesmen is easily identified as the initiation of aggression, which in turn gives the miners the right to defend themselves.
So, where is the issue? There is no need to violate any rights or to define members of primitive tribes as not human in any sense. Just applying the libertarian principles of ownership solves the whole issue.
Waldavians, he says, are a miserable people; for goodness’ sake, they walk around practically naked in their forests. They are barely rational and therefore barely human. They should be ashamed of themselves and of their own disgraceful way of life. Let us, that is, the Ruritanians, put them out of their misery. It may naively be objected that it is wrong to commit murder. But, our philosopher counters, once the Waldavians are gone, the Ruritanians can take their land, develop it, and consequently civilize it. The glory of Ruritania will be spread far and wide.
jnnywllms