What is the Austrian School's position on land rights with respect to the Native American peoples?
E. R. Olovetto: good game you lose
good game you lose
Nah, you started with the adhoms and name calling. Now a serious question is 'spewing garbage' to you.
You still didn't answer these questions. Me ad homming you again is no excuse for your disdain of logic.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto: You still didn't answer these questions. Me ad homming you again is no excuse for your disdain of logic.
Answer my own questions?
Irregardless of whether you consider the tribal lands of the Indians to have been properly homesteaded, the fact of the matter is that they, for the most part, cannot prove the bounds of their claims(remember, the current owner must have his claim proven illegitimate).
sicsempertyrannis: E. R. Olovetto: You still didn't answer these questions. Me ad homming you again is no excuse for your disdain of logic. Answer my own questions?
Are you really that obtuse? Please explain how Block's reparations theory supports Robert Mugabe's actions. What you have done here is make a bunch of fantastic and unfounded assertions then stomp your feet when you are found out.
E. R. Olovetto: sicsempertyrannis: E. R. Olovetto: You still didn't answer these questions. Me ad homming you again is no excuse for your disdain of logic. Answer my own questions? Are you really that obtuse? Please explain how Block's reparations theory supports Robert Mugabe's actions. What you have done here is make a bunch of fantastic and unfounded assertions then stomp your feet when you are found out.
OK, the Mugabe example was hyperbole. Yet he does support the concept of land reform (which reparations is related to) in a similar fashion. Sure he probably wouldnt want a government doing it, but he doesnt oppose the principle.
'Found out' ? No, I stand by my examples even if you dislike them. Having just re-read two of his essays on the topic, I still conclude that the examples given are plausible under his theory, although he says much less about the indian issue.
sicsempertyrannis: Daniel: How so? The slaves would have title to the plantation, but since they are dead, the title goes to their descendants. Thus, the descendant of the slaveowner would not have title to the plantation, and would have relinquish control to the descendants of the slaves. So because Uncle Ben worked the cotton fields, his descendants get the cotton fields and the house? Why?
Daniel: How so? The slaves would have title to the plantation, but since they are dead, the title goes to their descendants. Thus, the descendant of the slaveowner would not have title to the plantation, and would have relinquish control to the descendants of the slaves.
How so? The slaves would have title to the plantation, but since they are dead, the title goes to their descendants. Thus, the descendant of the slaveowner would not have title to the plantation, and would have relinquish control to the descendants of the slaves.
So because Uncle Ben worked the cotton fields, his descendants get the cotton fields and the house? Why?
Perhaps. If the house was built using money gained from the cotton fields, or if the house was built by the slaves. Anyway, this is only a hypthetical. Give me a real example to work with.
sicsempertyrannis:There are too many variables for it to ever work, even if it were desirable. After 1865, my family allowed several older ex-slaves to live out their golden years on the plantation. Does the free room and board count as reparations of sorts?
No. If I kick you in the balls then give you a dollar, that is not reparations, unless you agreed to that one dollar. Besides, the descendants of the slaves would have to prove that you ancestors enslaved the slaves, which is probably impossible by now. So I don't know why you're getting so defensive.
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."
sicsempertyrannis: E. R. Olovetto: sicsempertyrannis: E. R. Olovetto: You still didn't answer these questions. Me ad homming you again is no excuse for your disdain of logic. Answer my own questions? Are you really that obtuse? Please explain how Block's reparations theory supports Robert Mugabe's actions. What you have done here is make a bunch of fantastic and unfounded assertions then stomp your feet when you are found out. OK, the Mugabe example was hyperbole. Yet he does support the concept of land reform (which reparations is related to) in a similar fashion. Sure he probably wouldnt want a government doing it, but he doesnt oppose the principle. 'Found out' ? No, I stand by my examples even if you dislike them. Having just re-read two of his essays on the topic, I still conclude that the examples given are plausible under his theory, although he says much less about the indian issue.
Define "land reform". Block just means returning stolen property, when sufficient evidence is provided of course. Your assertions are still entirely nonsensical.
Daniel: No. If I kick you in the balls then give you a dollar, that is not reparations, unless you agreed to that one dollar. Besides, the descendants of the slaves would have to prove that you ancestors enslaved the slaves, which is probably impossible by now. So I don't know why you're getting so defensive.
Well but this was after the fact. They were no longer prisoners - they could have left at any time, and I dont believe they were servants. By them staying of their own free will, they accepted that as 'payment'. Thankfully, in real life relations between many slaves and slaveowners after the war wasnt as bad as you might think. My proof? The ex-slaves followed my family when they moved from Virginia to Indiana in the 1880s (the ex-slaves were left behind), so they must not have been that bitter.
sicsempertyrannis: Daniel: No. If I kick you in the balls then give you a dollar, that is not reparations, unless you agreed to that one dollar. Besides, the descendants of the slaves would have to prove that you ancestors enslaved the slaves, which is probably impossible by now. So I don't know why you're getting so defensive. Well but this was after the fact. They were no longer prisoners - they could have left at any time, and I dont believe they were servants. By them staying of their own free will, they accepted that as 'payment'. Thankfully, in real life relations between many slaves and slaveowners after the war wasnt as bad as you might think. My proof? The ex-slaves followed my family when they moved from Virginia to Indiana in the 1880s (the ex-slaves were left behind), so they must not have been that bitter.
Your ancestors' slaves may have been officially manumitted, but justice was never carried out. Your kin were kidnappers, if not murderers and rapists. The slaves followed as a self-defensive measure because the environment for justice completely ignored the slave owners' crimes and aided the transition to soft-slavery (review the following 50+ years of black history.)
Olovetto, very few African slaves were actually enslaved by Europeans - for the most part, the latter paid natives(who practiced slavery themselves to a much smaller extent) for the former.
I don't know the particulars of the case and I doubt you know everything about it, so I won't continue on this.
Byzantine: Daniel:How so? The slaves would have title to the plantation, but since they are dead, No they don't. The plantation owner has title to the plantation. They may have a theoretical lien against the property, but it doesn't pass to their descendants, no more than a mechanics/materialmen's lien passes in descent and distribution. The value the slaves may have added to the property (not necessarily the case) was paid when the plantation owner sold the property. The subsequent purchasers are not riding on anybody's labor.
Daniel:How so? The slaves would have title to the plantation, but since they are dead,
No they don't. The plantation owner has title to the plantation. They may have a theoretical lien against the property, but it doesn't pass to their descendants, no more than a mechanics/materialmen's lien passes in descent and distribution. The value the slaves may have added to the property (not necessarily the case) was paid when the plantation owner sold the property. The subsequent purchasers are not riding on anybody's labor.
Why not? Anyway, I say we drop this because we the particulars of this hypothetical are ill described.
I have the following question for you: Should slaves receive reparations?