General

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

scineram — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:16:59 GMT

It is enough groud for my moral principle.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

histhasthai — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:27:23 GMT

scineram:
I think it is quite established that the descendants would be the heirs by default if there is no other indication, so they most certainly have a claim.

That's a legal construct based on tradition and custom. It's not grounds for a moral principle. Bequeathment is a purposeful action, it can't be assumed in a moral context, though it is legitimate for a legal system to use it as a default position in the absence of other substantive claims. What we are talking about here is most definitely not an absence of substantive competing claims.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

histhasthai — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:20:46 GMT

JCFolsom:
The inheritance is what is speculative.

No. It is actual, or there is no issue to discuss. If a parent retains the right of something that was taken form his possession, and explicitly wills it to a child, that child has the same claim the parent had. The problem we get into is when the inheritance is implied, and in that case, I agree, the claim of the child is severely and possibly fatally weakened.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

JCFolsom — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:25:25 GMT

Stephen Forde:

JCFolsom:
Your ancestors, not you, were wronged.

True enough.

JCFolsom:
You did not necessarily lose anything.

Except an inheritance.

The inheritance is what is speculative. Your parents are obligated to provide the dependency for which they were responsible. If someone kills your parents, they are obligated to you to provide for you as they would have been obligated. The obligation transfers. However, your parents were obligated to give you nothing after you reached adulthood, so if they're land is stolen between the time you become an adult and the time they die, you have lost nothing. You didn't own it. It wasn't yours, and you had no more right to it than anyone else. You are viewing genetic relationships as if they make you into some kind of a collective, like you somehow already owned part of what your parents might or might not have left you. You are wrong. You lose nothing you have a right to, and can make no claim to it in the future.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

Stephen — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:03:42 GMT

JCFolsom:
Your ancestors, not you, were wronged.

True enough.

JCFolsom:
You did not necessarily lose anything.

Except an inheritance.

JCFolsom:
You might have gained!

Has nothing to do with the rightful distribution of property titles.

JCFolsom:
You may well not exist, and certainly wouldn't as you are, had your ancestors not been stolen from.

Speculative. Again.

JCFolsom:
I say only the directly wronged parties can regain stolen property during the lives of those who stole them. If the guilty or aggrieved parties die, the case dies with them.

Murderers should get off the hook? Their victims are dead. Obviously they can not revenge themselves or pursue restitution themselves.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

Bostwick — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:00:29 GMT

JonBostwick:

Stephen Forde:
I`m going to have to dissagree with you here. Rothbard addressed this issue in page 59 of The Ethics of Liberty. He basically argues that the property should be returned to the original owner regardless of any additions.

Ill check it out.

Similarly if Brown had stolen a parcel of land from Black, and sold it to Robinson, the criterion should again be the separability of any additions Robinson had made to the property. If, for example, Robinson had built some buildings on the property, then he should be able to move the buildings or demolish them before turning the land over to the original landowner, Black.

Pretty standard.

Obviously, if the criminal adds to the land then that belongs to the victim by accession. Pretty much all the Palestinian property would fall into this category, as the current owners are not market purchasers but privileged by the thief.

The case I was talking about was if the land was added to by an innocent third party.

I don't believe land ownership to be as straight forward as Rothbard suggests there. Justice is not serviced by merely returning the land. If I steal a car then scrap it, I can't simply return the metal and expect my debt be fulfilled. In this case I would owe my victim the value of what I stole, as returning his property would be impossible. The car no longer exists.

Lets say that my car is melted down and sold. This metal is used to build half of a person's house. Do I then, as owner of the car, have a 50% claim in this person's home? I don't believe I do. Even though the atoms are the same, the metal is no longer my car.

Ownership of land is not linked to the dirt, but the use of the land.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

Stephen — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:55:43 GMT

JCFolsom:
Where are they to go? If I was born here and my parents were born here, how is that fair? It is my homeland, now.

Appeal to sentiment. Irrelevant.

JCFolsom:
There are no guarantees that, had my ancestor not stolen the land, that it would rightfully belong the descendants of those they stole it from anyway. They could have left it to someone else, or died in a plague or famine or something else.

Speculation. Irrelevant to the question of rights.

JCFolsom:
Why is one patch of land you have never set foot on better than another if both have the same value? How far back do you go?

Why should some item purchased over the internet that you have never laid hands on better than another if both have the same value?

This question obviously has nothing to do with property rights.

JCFolsom:
Tell me if I'm wrong here, but I'm betting that you or someone you know have some ancestors that were dispossessed.

You are wrong here. There are none that I know of.

JCFolsom:
You cannot turn back time, and you cannot get back what was lost.

Sure you can. This is called repossession.

JCFolsom:
Taking it back now just displaces someone new and innocent.

That is not all it does. It also restores rightful ownership.

JCFolsom:
And it's not as if these Palestinians didn't steal it from someone else back in the past.

If it can be proven that any particular palestinian took the land illigitimately in the past, than it should be returned to the rightful owner. If the current status quo is unjust, it should be made just.

JCFolsom:
What's done is done.

And can be undone.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

JCFolsom — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:32:11 GMT

Stephen Forde:

The issue is not whether their ancestors committed a crime. The issue is whether or not they are the legitimate owners of the property they currently occupy. If it belongs to someone else, they should hand it over.

When you say that the issue is not about land but about nationalism and ethnocentrism, you ignore the possibility that it is about both. Humans can only come into conflict over scarce resources. The history of the modern Israeli state is the history of one big nationalistic land grab. And this is the single largest factor behind anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world. The best solution to the conflict is to allow the right of return to Palestinians and their descendants who have being ejected from their land.

Where are they to go? If I was born here and my parents were born here, how is that fair? It is my homeland, now. There are no guarantees that, had my ancestor not stolen the land, that it would rightfully belong the descendants of those they stole it from anyway. They could have left it to someone else, or died in a plague or famine or something else. Why is one patch of land you have never set foot on better than another if both have the same value? How far back do you go?

Tell me if I'm wrong here, but I'm betting that you or someone you know have some ancestors that were dispossessed. Very sad, but also irrelevant. You cannot turn back time, and you cannot get back what was lost. Taking it back now just displaces someone new and innocent. And it's not as if these Palestinians didn't steal it from someone else back in the past.

What's done is done. Your ancestors, not you, were wronged. You did not necessarily lose anything. You might have gained! You may well not exist, and certainly wouldn't as you are, had your ancestors not been stolen from. I say only the directly wronged parties can regain stolen property during the lives of those who stole them. If the guilty or aggrieved parties die, the case dies with them.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

Bostwick — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:26:10 GMT

Stephen Forde:
I`m going to have to dissagree with you here. Rothbard addressed this issue in page 59 of The Ethics of Liberty. He basically argues that the property should be returned to the original owner regardless of any additions.

Ill check it out.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

Stephen — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:16:23 GMT

JCFolsom:
Still, now, there have been several generations of those who call themselves Israelis born in the lands of Palestine, and who are we or anyone to tell them that they must be rendered landless because their ancestors committed a crime? Then again, who are we to tell the descendants of dispossessed Palestinians that they can never retrieve what was stolen from them and their ancestors?

The issue is not whether their ancestors commited a crime. The issue is whether or not they are the legitimate owners of the property they currently occupy. If it belongs to someone else, they should hand it over.

When you say that the issue is not about land but about nationalism and ethnocentrism, you ignore the possibility that it is about both. Humans can only come into conflict over scarce resources. The history of the modern Israelli state is the history of one big nationalistic land grab. And this is the single largest factor behind anti-Israelli sentiment in the Arab world. The best solution to the conflict is to allow the right of return to Palestinians and their descendents who have being ejected from their land.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

Stephen — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:55:08 GMT

JonBostwick:

However, I don't think the descendants should get a clear title. They may own the land, but not necessarily the improvements made to it. Rather, the descendents have the right to buy the property for the value of the improvements. If they chose to not buy it, they are entitled to receive payment for the value of the actual land.

But this leaves with the problem of determining property value, should we use property value of when it was stolen or of today? I don't see why Native Americans should be paid today's high urban land values, for example.

I`m going to have to dissagree with you here. Rothbard addressed this issue in page 59 of The Ethics of Liberty. He basically argues that the property should be returned to the original owner regardless of any additions. The current owner has the right to remove or destroy any additions, but the new additions don`t impose any new debts upon the legitimate owner. With regard to value, no one owns the value of property, only its physical integrity and physical control over it.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

scineram — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:30:29 GMT

I think it is quite established that the descendants would be the heirs by default if there is no other indication, so they most certainly have a claim. I say if one generation passes without effort to reclaim let it go.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

JCFolsom — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:21:25 GMT

Another point to consider here is that a person need not leave a piece of property to his or her offspring. Just because most do, does not make it inevitable. Given that we do not know whether the owner would have, in fact given it to their children had they not been dispossessed, we cannot establish that the descendant has any right to the land.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

Paul — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:52:21 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Hmm I'd agree. In this case, the donor would have to compensate the person whom they gifted (say for instance the son built a skyscraper on this stolen land, and now has to tear it down - the thief is the one liable.)

If he didn't know the land he built on was stolen, I'd say the two owners (of the building and of the land) just have to sort it out between them; the building doesn't have to be torn down - either the building-owner will buy or rent the land, or the land-owner will buy or rent the building or whatever...(or they won't agree and both will block each other's access to their respective properties, making it worthless to both of them, so they have good incentive to reach a mutually-agreeable settlement)

Jon Irenicus:

On the other hand, say a few centuries pass after the theft.. and out of the blue comes the heir of the legitimate owner. Would they have much of a claim? Given a huge passage of time and potential developments of the property, it's hard to answer in the affirmative.

That's easily solved by the issue of abandonment: if there's no ongoing dispute over the ownership (i.e., the legitimate owner isn't claiming it any more), after some period of time (arbitrary; needs to be decided by courts, etc., but certainly "a few centuries" is more than sufficient), it's considered abandoned and can be homesteaded again; since it's no longer owned by the previous owner at that point, it can't be passed down to the heir of his heir of his heir and so on who pops up a few centuries later. So no, he has no claim.

Re: Stolen Property Concerns

Bostwick — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:34:55 GMT

JCFolsom:
In general, and in terms of property, you would be hard-pressed to find any piece of owned property whose current chain of ownership via otherwise legitimate means actually started out that way.

Much of the continental USA would fall into that. Native Americans only actually owned a small portion of the country, the rest was available to be homesteaded.

Where I sit right now was stolen from neither Indian nor Spaniard.