What is the Austrian School's position on land rights with respect to the Native American peoples?
XulChris: What is the Austrian School's position on land rights with respect to the Native American peoples?
There is no, nor can't there be, an Austrian School's position on this. But, the (hasty) libertarian position would be that the Native American's deserve to have their land returned to them.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
They rejected human ownership. They have no right to anything according to their own pagan religion.
Caley McKibbin: They rejected human ownership. They have no right to anything according to their own pagan religion.
So they do not have a concept of "owning" the land, since the land to them is sacred. Yet, they do have a concept of how to take care of the land. If some individual does not understand the concept of land rights, does that mean she should not have those rights?
Yes, it means that they should not be whining later that they own it. They need to stfu and take their own pill.
Reparations by Walter Block
The final lecture in a series of ten, presented at the "Radical Austrianism, Radical Libertarianism" seminar, hosted by the Mises Institute. Recorded 07/29/2005 [1:22:02]
10. THE PROBLEM OF LAND THEFT by Murray N. Rothbard
It takes a lot of alteration to get from this..: ..to this: ( link )
So you see, a lot needs to be altered before you can create any crops. And so, the land in the second picture is in active use. This includes [water, minerals, surface, etc], all of which have been altered for production. If you can use the airspace above or the ground below it without damaging the property that is in active use, then there is no problem.
----------
I would say hunting and gathering are examples of repeated one-time use instead of active alteration.
For example, what if some other tribe came and hunted on the same grounds, or plucked from the same trees? It's hard to see how one tribe has any more right than the other. So it seems that there should be no problem with actually setting out and improving on the land, for production. Now, in some sense you might say that the hunters are like fisher-men. They don't over-hunt so that the population of prey remains affluent. But homesteading a little plot here and there probably doesn't effect the hunters at all, and over time the hunters can learn from the settlers and so there doesn't have to be a conflict at all. But yes, it is a tricky situation, particularly when a lot of settlers come in a short amount of time. I do think the people who improve on the land have the upper hand though.
No, Hunters and gatherers certainly alter things. They pluck fruits and nuts and they hunt animals. Those fruits, nuts and animals then belong to them. But the fruits, nuts and animals that they haven't plucked or hunted are not theirs; they should be free to be plucked and hunted by anyone. If I pluck an apple from an unowned tree, is it now my tree? No, it is only my apple.
Thats not true.
First of all, "they" constitute a large number scattered across very different locales, with varying ideas about property, second "they" did believe in some forms of property rights.
Conza88: Reparations by Walter Block
One of his most laughable positions. I lost alot of respect for his theories after reading that one. We can presume that Block probably approves of Mugabe's land reform.
But to get to the point of the thread, most libertarians will probably say you shouldnt 'steal their land'. But this argument reminds me of immigration restriction/border security advocates. Was the whole of the New World 'their' land? Had they 'homesteaded' the whole lot of every part of it? (nevermind they had no concept of private property) No, in fact they had homesteaded very little of it - but this wont stop some libertarians from telling you that whitey needs to move back to the old world to satisfy the ridiculous Blockian notion of 'justice'.
what do you think Block says in the talk ?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
nirgrahamUK: what do you think Block says in the talk ?
Ok to clarify he has written several pieces about reparations/land reform. Those are what I was referring to as silly. I didnt listen to the talk because I dont have to; I already know what his position is. Basically, since my great-great-great-great grandfather owned about 25 slaves - fast forward to today - me, who has never owned a slave, now owes their descendants (who were never slaves themselves) money. I dont think so.
Juan:I don't think libertarians say that the whole of the new world was homestead, so your post is just one big straw man.
No, but 'they' (yes, a strawman) almost never elaborate on the point either.
strawman
its not about whether you've ever owned slaves. but whether you presently own property that can be proven to have been stolen and to have a more rightful owner
nirgrahamUK: strawman its not about whether you've ever owned slaves. but whether you presently own property that can be proven to have been stolen and to have a more rightful owner
How is it a strawman? He himself used a near identical example to prove that I ought to owe 'back wages'.