Economics Questions

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

Egon — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:22:01 GMT

Nice article, Angurse.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

wilderness — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:42:41 GMT

Charles Anthony:

What will matter is what the pitch-fork weilding and dollar-spending masses want. They are the ones who will dictate our conduct.

yeaper.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

Charles Anthony — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:38:43 GMT

Byzantine:

Daniel:
I have the following question for you: Should slaves receive reparations?

Yes, but the only logical form they can take are as damages in tort for false imprisonment.

Hold your horses! Not so fast, there, partner.

Now I have to ask: Who gets to choose the arbitrator in such a dispute?

The point being: slavery is a violation of freedom which can make it impossible for the slave to afford his own defence. Libertarian justice may not be a possibility because libertarian justice assumes that all parties voluntarily chose to step on the jurisdiction in question. That is not the case with slavery. Saying that the slave is entitled to damages in tort is as meaningful as saying a murdered man is entitled to reparations so long as he can rise from the dead.

Regardless, nobody´s opinion matters much on this fine detail of law. What will matter is what the pitch-fork weilding and dollar-spending masses want. They are the ones who will dictate our conduct.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:26:37 GMT

Angurse:

Caley McKibbin:

They rejected human ownership. They have no right to anything according to their own pagan religion.

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.

That article is terrible. No references whatsoever to back up his interpretation. If you learn something about native justice you will probably find that it is an improvement over what we have. However, my view on land is based on the fact that they sold land to colonists to which they never did anything that qualifies as homesteading. That has nothing to do with property rights. Maybe in some narrow cases they have valid complaints, but they did not consult The Ethics of Liberty before lodging their complaints.

In any case, they've already gotten far more worth in taxed loot than they deserve.

Of course, if they are willing to give up their illegitimately occupied "reservations", I'll gladly hear them out.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

sicsempertyrannis — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:36:44 GMT

Though some of the slave owners, like the honorable thomas jefferson, are considered heroes, which is a pretty bad joke...

You've said that before, but I disagree. Being a slave owner isnt enough to make me dislike a historical figure.

Is it ? The argument is that slave owners did not originally homestead the land, the slaves did.

Contrary to movies like Roots, many slave owners were out working in the same fields with their slaves. Only a handful of rich planters could kick back and do nothing.

Frankly, I don't know what can be done today. The people who should have paid for their crimes are all dead

Absolutely.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

Juan — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:27:14 GMT

Certainly, if my family's slaves sued for damages, that would be entitled to damages but I do not think it negates the land owners title to the property.

Frankly, I don't know what can be done today. The people who should have paid for their crimes are all dead. Though some of the slave owners, like the honorable thomas jefferson, are considered heroes, which is a pretty bad joke...

Clearly, the land is owned, even if it is being worked by captive laborers.

Is it ? The argument is that slave owners did not originally homestead the land, the slaves did.

His example might work for truly unowned land, such as the vast federal lands in the west. However, there was not much slave labor used out in Indian Territory or other western lands.

Well, I confess total ignorance about the historical facts. I was agreeing with the theoretical considerations, but I don't know how they would play out in practice.

I still strongly disagree with their use of inherited debts, and I dont think I can get around that.

I'm not sure that Block is putting it in terms of inherited debts, but in terms of who has legitimate title to property.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

DanielMuff — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:14:55 GMT

sicsempertyrannis:

Daniel:

So where does the property go to if there is no legal will?

A private court should make that determination. More than likely family members or close friends.

Under what authority?

sicsempertyrannis:

Debts are offenses?

Dont you think they are?

So if I borrow money, I have committed an offense? I don't get it.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

sicsempertyrannis — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:12:19 GMT

Juan:
Just out of curiosity, whats your take on that theory?
Sounds theoretically plausible. If Smith inherits stuff that was originally stolen from Jones, he can't complain if Jones claims his stuff back.

I think he sets the bar too high. Certainly, if my family's slaves sued for damages, that would be entitled to damages but I do not think it negates the land owners title to the property. Clearly, the land is owned, even if it is being worked by captive laborers. His example might work for truly unowned land, such as the vast federal lands in the west. However, there was not much slave labor used out in Indian Territory or other western lands. I still strongly disagree with their use of inherited debts, and I dont think I can get around that.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

Angurse — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:10:52 GMT

sicsempertyrannis:

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.

I think you should read/listen to more Block.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

Juan — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:06:39 GMT

Just out of curiosity, whats your take on that theory?

Sounds theoretically plausible. If Smith inherits stuff that was originally stolen from Jones, he can't complain if Jones claims his stuff back.

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

sicsempertyrannis — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:56:31 GMT

Daniel:

So who does the property go to if there is no legal will?

A private court should make that determination. More than likely family members or close friends.

Debts are offenses?

Dont you think they are?

Re: Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples

sicsempertyrannis — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:55:22 GMT

Juan:
I just browsed one of Block's Alston's paper and the argument is that slaves homesteaded the land and so the descendants of the slave owners have no legitimate title to it.

Just out of curiosity, whats your take on that theory?