No, tiresome is this analysis. I couldn’t care if you think I’m trying to grab attention or whatever else. My response to Wombatron was sincere.
Try the majority of people on these forums. If you really think that those who are not capable of rational argumentation are capable of rights you’ve got some rethinking to do.
If you have no idea of the concept of property then you can’t own property, it’s that simple. As for not being able to articulate it, that’s another problem entirely. One that has nothing to do with whether or not they deserve rights in the first place. The fact of the matter is that if they have the ability to reason and wish to join the division of labour they’ll find a way. Both sides would be content with that since it’s a great deal easier than waging war, and more importantly it’s cheaper.
This has nothing to do with values and even less to do with conservatism. You may not feel comfortable with the idea we have the right to homestead land that hasn’t yet been homesteaded but is inhabitated by people who will kill you on sight and have no idea about the concept of property or rights, but that’s not my issue. Libertarianism is full of issues that very few people would feel comfortable with, such as Rothbard’s proposal that parents have the right to abandon their child. I, for one, find that wrong, and feel the parents have a positive obligation as a result of their own action. Most “Rothbardians” on the other hand accept that.
If land hasn’t been homesteaded, and there is a subjective aspect to homesteading that is clearly missing here, I can do it. If some primitives wish to keep using the land their going to have to fight me for it or else prove that they own it legitimately.
You’re right - his reasoning is in fact identical to the reasoning Randroids use to justifying total war on civilian populations by blurring who’s the initiator.
You’re assuming the lack of rationality of others as a reason for justifying violence. You’re also making a ridiculous sweeping judgement of the capabilities of people just because you don’t like their culture. It’s amusing that you claim “they only understand violence” when it is you trying to justify violence.
No, I’m not. You’re imagining things, this would have to be settled case by case.
I see it as the only solution. If they can’t reason, there’s no other way to convince them to leave the land that could be homesteaded. That’s the whole point of it isn’t this debate.
The claim that they aren’t aware of the concept of property is highy dubious. Everyone intuitively has at least a basic concept of property.
Even if true, property rights is not based on the thoughts inside people’s heads in this way. It doesn’t negate property rights just because someone has or doesn’t have a certain concept in their head.
You are diving head first into absurdity by comparing human beings to mere animals, in the attempt to justify an inconsistancy in how you apply principles to human beings. The claim that they have no rationality is also highly dubious.
So your argument justifies pre-emptive force on the basis that people MIGHT jail you if you try to buy the properties they weild power over. It is not they who initiate the force, and you aren’t even certain if they are threatening force. You just assume that they are a threat and thus initiate force. Walter Block’s argument against pre-emptive war applies to your argument.
Your assumption that the land hasn’t been homesteaded makes no sense. Yes, the land has been homesteaded by those who currently occupy it. Unless you have some whacky notion of what constitutes homesteading that most libertarians have no idea about.
It seems to me that you are the one out of anyone incapable of reasoning here, since you’re trying to justify initiating violence, and your assumption that others lack the ability to reason appears to be based on little more than an arbitrary racism.
Now, I’m taking this from Roderick Long as well as Kinsella and Hoppe, he claims (correctly) that there is a subjective element to homesteading. You have to have some idea of the notion of property and rights if you’re to possess them. The fact is these primitives don’t have that.
Perhaps, but that misses the point anyway, these individuals haven’t consciously homesteaded the land and don’t have any conception of it as their property. Which is what matters.
Yes, and yet their is a subjective element in regards to homesteading.
They may have the capability. That doesn’t mean they’re willing to attempt rational argumentation with you, nor does it mean they use this capability.
What “primitives” are you talking about? To my knowledge, the fact is that EVERYONE has some concept of property. It’s something intuitively learned from childhood. The basic concepts of “mine” and “yours” is universally understood. The fact is that everyone does, to one degree or another, possess them, and most people simultaneously do not have a fully comprehensive understanding of them.
Also, I’m coming from the perspective that rights are norms we apply to human beings, not specific classes. To my knowledge, libertarianism proposes normative rights-concepts for human beings. There is no grand requirement other than being a human being (which inherently implies the capacity of rationality). The use of the capacity of rationality as a prerequisite for rights, as I understand it, simply means that the rationality that ALL HUMANS possess is part of the pretext for the formation of rights. It is not meant to be an exclusive thing where we separate people into different classes either deserving or undeserving of rights. Rationality, in this sense, only refers to a fundamental capacity that we all share by virtue of being humans. It is NOT meant to imply that we can magically exclude certain groups from libertarian norms.
Again, your claim is dubious. It is simply an arbitrary assertion on your part that they dont have any conception of it as their property. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t try to defend it to begin with. The mere fact that they try to defend it would seem to indicate that they do concieve of it as property. Furthermore, what do you mean “conciously homesteaded”? What’s the alternative? To “unconciously homestead”?
I’m not aware of any class of humans, language barriers aside, unwilling or unable to engage in argumentation. What group of humans are you really talking about? You’re talking in some fairly broad abstractions here.
I’m not going to get sidetracked by a debate as to whether or not people do intuitively learn it from childhood. Although, that begs that question as to how their parents learnt it to relate it to them, or at least assumes that they live in a society in which property ownership is normal. The position I’m debating is contingent on that not being the case.
No, not necessarily. In fact in many primitive communities there is no concept whatsoever of yours or mine, only ours. Moreover, property rights may only be necessary when there is scarcity, if this doesn’t appear due to very low populations there may be no need for it. Once again, if these people can demonstrate a coherent understanding of property, or that it is the case that the subjective aspect of homestead has been fulfilled, I don’t disagree with you.
And why, tell me, are human beings eligible for rights and no other species?
It being implied in their being human isn’t sufficient, they have to demonstrate that they are capable of rational argumentation. I’d agree with you that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn’t mean that they’re always capable of rational argumentation.
Not only primitives will be driven off. We libertarians will also get rid of homosexuals, drug users, people who drink more than a glass of wine per day (for the sake of consistency I hope), heretics (libertarianism requires revealed religion), niggers, asians and any other sub-standard human beings, and so on and so forth.
Right. They will be dealt with, too, don’t worry.
Oh, come on. There’s nothing arbitrary about revealed conservatism
This is value free economics. What ? You don’t understand economics ?