SCIENCE

[HERTLE]

On 2/12/2021 at 2:06 PM, Peter said:

I had a few old letters from Ralph Hertle. Here are three. Trying to get rid of spaces I deleted some words and replaced them with dots. Peter

From: Ralph Hertle To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Native Americans & un-owned US govt land Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:07:04 -0400 OWL: Prior to the arrival of the Europeans the population of the Native Americans reached as high as 500,000 to 2,000,000 persons. There were many tribes all across North America. Some tribes and persons were nomads, and most were not. The NAs of Central Illinois lived in wooden towns. The NAs of Ohio lived in houses and communities, and their system of representative government formed the basis for the US Congress. The Hopi people of the Southwestern US area lived in multi-storied apartment buildings.

Of course, the NAs had the concept of property, and to various extents there were various innovations, developments, and applications of it.

An acquaintance of mine told me that Ayn Rand said in her lecture at West Point, called, "Philosophy: Who Needs It", in the Q and A session, that the Native Americans have no property rights ..... because they were a bunch of nomads that did not have the "concept" of property rights.

The NAs were definitely not all nomads, and the facts clearly support that. Any claim the NAs were all nomads would involve the fallacy of over-generalization in that the characteristics of a part should not be extended to include all the other different parts.

Regarding property and property rights, I don't doubt that there were a number of different concepts of property as well as different arrangements for dividing land, usage rights, renting, and buying and selling goods or property, that were used by the various tribes. The Nas had nothing as sophisticated as the concepts of the Europeans, however. Any claim that the NAs did not have the concept of property is impossible to support by means of a reference to the facts. Surely, that if one NA did not have a concept of property rights, and that some did, such a claim would involve over-generalization.

I think the issue is not what concepts of property the NAs had, rather, that the Americans should have extended their concepts to the NAs as a gift. A gift of law, liberty, civilization, freedom of action, and productivity. American concepts of property should have been employed to identify and upgrade or enhance the concepts of property that were then in use by the NAs. For example, the Americans should have helped the NAs to find out where their tribe's, group's, or individual's land was, mark it out on the land, map it, register the deeds, and respect it. Lack of the English language would have prevented the NAs from registering deeds to their lands, and the Americans should have done it for them and talked them through the process.

The form of the land that was ultimately given to the NAs by American legislators was the prison reservation. The concept of property that was used by the nomadic American settlers to locate the NAs was the concentration camp.

The USA still uses concentration camps, e.g., to contain Japanese Americans during WWII, and also, to contain Caribbean immigrants and ex-Cuban prisoners during the 1970s & 80s (cite needed). WWII soldiers were POWs, and that was a different matter.

I would ask who's concepts of property were superior.

Except for the reservations, the NAs were eventually totally included into the fabric of America. They were surrounded, and there was nothing better for them to do than to work within the American system and to reap the benefits of the American society.

The opportunity continues to exist that America can formally extend its concepts of liberty, rights, and property to the descendants of the Native Americans.

The lands that are now being used for their natural resources, or as nature preserves, could, under NA ownership and management, become valuable places. Wealth could be generated in new ways that US government bureaucracies and curators could never imagine.

State governments could create programs similar to the Federal program. America could be the first nation in all history to become 100% privately owned.

I searched using the keywords, native american, native, and, Indian, and "The Objectivism Research CD-ROM", by Philip Oliver, and I was not able to locate any information regarding Ayn Rand's views for this thread. Nor was I able to locate Rand's West Point speech that includes a reference to Native Americans.

[Moderator: Ralph added in a subsequent message: "Greg Johnson pointed out to me the published source regarding Rand's West Point speech that has a reference to the Native Americans: He says that the speech in question was available as a CD from Second Renaissance books. Thanks Greg."]

While we are at it the concept and practice of the concentration camp should be banned by the Supreme Court under several principles of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Also, I think that a Presidential Proclamation could be ratified into law by the Congress, for example, in the same way as Lincoln created the Emancipation Proclamation. It would be ludicrous to call such entities as concentration camps property, especially in a free society. Congress needs to define the rights of all types of peoples, or groups that are confined, and what means or recourse of action that any such individuals would have in a court of law.

The argument that since virtually no American during the 18th and 19th centuries had a Birth Certificate, pedigree, or any sort of legal documentation, that they were not legal residents of the US. Hence they had no rights as citizens any more than did the Native Americans. The argument could be continued, however, the principle that in America all rights are inalienable, meaning the rights of all the people, will ultimately hold true.

Is there a lawyer somewhere in America who could bring the instant matters of government land and the Native Americans to the attention of the Supreme Court or to the President? Ralph Hertle

From: Ralph Hertle To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Native Americans & un-owned US govt land Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:01:23 -0400 OWL: I was been told off-list that I had not described the concept of private property rights that any of the NAs held. Nor had I stated why the descendants of the NAs have any claim on the natural resources their descendants had no knowledge, of, e.g., oil and minerals. That is basically true. I think that it the property rights concept of the NAs is irrelevant. Also the mineral rights is not an issue since the rights to minerals are part of the land. In other words, the minerals that are part of the land are generally transferred with the land unless any discovered minerals or rights to same are transferred by means of contracts, e.g., by sale or lease.

A further explanation of my proposal to privatize all socialistic land in the US, and to, at the same time, formally extend the principles of American rights and Constitutional liberties to the NAs, which morally should have been done, and to their descendants follows.

............................

Readers may be interested in the earlier post that I made on, Mon., Oct. 22, 2001, 1:30a, that had the subject, line, "Re: Native Americans & un-owned US govt. land" This post is a further explanation to that earlier post. That post dealt with the "...American concept of inalienable rights...", and with a way to deal with the matter of creating new property rights where no sophisticated or continually existing rights of private property have been generally recognized.

The interesting concept of the proposal was that it permits the socialistic land of the USA to be converted to private property. The land would then become a productive part of the free-enterprise system. The land would be moved into the private ownership realm at no cost to any American, nor would existing mining, leases, rentals, and other land use contracts be discontinued.

Nor would the land be given away, sold or auctioned, to any special interest groups. The successor owners, that is the new owners (there not having been any owners according to popular property theory and modern non-NA preferences) would honor the existing contracts, e.g., leases or easements, by amending the appropriate papers, filings, licenses, and whatever. There would be costs to the creation and tracking of the new corporations, by government agencies or private contractors, of course. Capital Gains and income taxes could be waived for the one-time event. There would be stock underwriting and transfer and legal fees. No real estate sales would be initially involved, only a creation and identification of shares of stock.

Included in the land would be the rivers, lakes, and coastal waterways that lie upon US Government land as part of the government lands to identified anew as private lands. All these lands would be privatized by incorporation as the new assets of private stock companies, and by the acceptance by the distribution of shares in the incorporated companies equally to all descendants of Native Americans.  Thousands of corporations would exist that would reflect the great number of parcels. The parcels should be made as large as possible, however the task of identifying the individual pieces of land, and creating deeds, and registering the deeds with the appropriate state governments would be a significant task. Fortunately, the US is up to its top in the number of attorneys it has, and there are plenty enough to do the work. The record keeping necessary would be possible due the great advances made in computers, software, IT, RE management, and GIS technologies applications.

I will reiterate at this time that it makes no difference, whatsoever, what form of ownership the NAs had. The important legal theory would be that the legal domain of the liberties of America had been extended to encompass and embrace all the NAs and their descendants. The rights and principles of American liberty should be those that should have prevailed.

Nor is the principle of a claim relevant. Nor should the claim to any wealth, or to the wealth of others, especially the wealth that was considered to be wealth by the NAs, as expressed by Americans, and that was taken by the Americans, be considered to be valid. Claims imply the right to take, use, improve, and to own any property. But there must first be rightfully owned property. I will grant that many, if not most, settlers were as honest as the Nas in their desire to create a life from the land. The NAs had been purposefully using and developing the land to the benefit of creating a living since ever; and the property acquiring and owning settlers have been purposefully using and developing the land to the benefit of creating a living for themselves ever since. Measurement omission should prevail.

The sophistication of the possible concepts of property has grown considerably from the early days. The rationality of current corporation and real estate ownership laws, in general, is considerable.

The Americans claimed and took, and then they stopped taking. What they didn't take they didn't return or refuse. They made it into socialistic, e.g., institutionalized government owned and operated land preserves or government business entities.

What is important now is that the land which has not been so claimed, improved and taken by private Americans should be simply released to the descendants of the NAs, and that it should become deeded land that is privately owned for the first time in history. . . .  than the descendants of the NAs, has a claim on the untaken lands. The lands in question, insofar as private ownership in a free enterprise system, are untaken privately. The improvements made to such lands, e.g., the construction of an airport, should remain the property of the government, or leaseholders, for example, and it is the land that should be made private.

Non-NA private persons also have no claims to the ownership of the lands by merit of a de-facto non-taking of the land, and the US government has ensured that the land be continued as non-owned land. That is, in spite of the claims of the occupation of, working and improving the land, or specifically using the land, that the NAs had.

Rights to the natural resources should remain with the land. Leases, easements, contracts to create certain improvements, and other contractual rights to make and keep certain improvements that have been agreed by means of contracts between the party and the government or filed with the government, e.g., possibly some mining, travel, or water rights, should remain in effect. The government would have to create the deeds to any improvements that it created, or to make contracts with the new owners to continue certain types of uses.

Their would, no doubt, be numerous special claims, and the Courts would be busy. I haven't devised a scheme that would embrace the reservations that are owned by the NA tribes or nations. I suggest, provisionally, that stock corporations be created for the reservation entities, and that the shares be given to all residents who now or ever did reside on such reservations. Some Objective laws would need to be written, and possibly the NA tribes would have a totally different approach. Quite possibly the reservation lands should simply be given to the tribal managements in the form of stock companies, and they would become the directors of the companies. That is a possible exception to the general principle of the giving of all of the un-owned government lands to all of the descendants of the Native Americans. In that way the concepts of American liberties would be formally extended to include the all the reservations. The matter of Sovereignty would need to be discussed, and maybe some type of democratically renewable merged status could be devised. The privatization of all public lands would be accomplished in the same act of law that would enable all the descendants of Native Americans to be the participants in a new process, that of protected American Liberty, individual rights, and free-enterprise.

Giving is the wrong word. The process is the benevolent recognition and granting of American liberties to those who would have properly been the beneficiaries to such a recognition and granting, and to their descendants.

All Americans would benefit greatly by the new burst of productivity that would be created by the new corporate owners. The process has no relationship to the particular monetary or other values of any lands for any reason. Measurement omission applies. The shares would be evenly divided, and each descendant of a Native American would get one share, or an equal number of shares, in every corporation, and every corporation would own significant parcels or lands that would include all the un-owned government land. For the first time, the lands would be cared for and made productive by private individuals and their companies. The new owners would be responsible for the use, upkeep, and commercial development of their lands as they see proper.

I make no claims to having all the answers to all the possible consequential problems. I think that the disposal of, or the privatization of, all of the un-owned government lands should be accomplished with as strict adherence to, extension of, and application of, the principles of the domain of American Liberty, individual rights, private property, and free enterprise as is humanly possible. Ralph Hertle

 

 

From: Ralph Hertle To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Defn. of Scientific Experiment Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:10:48 -0500 OWL: On scientific experiments: I suggest that the purpose, and not the function, of an experiment is to isolate the phenomena, causes and principles of interest, and to remove from consideration all factors that are not integral with the causes, etc., that are of interest.

 

The principles, etc., that function may be directly observed, evaluated, identified and measured by means of the operation or functioning of the experiment. (It is interesting that the terms, operation and functioning, of existents and causes, are frequently found in Aristotle's scientific writings.)

 

An experiment is a demonstration in physical reality or in ideas pertaining to same, of actual or hypothesized principles regarding the functioning of metaphysical or epistemological existents.

 

A scientific experiment, and I think that the qualification scientific is necessary, may be differentiated from a demonstration, which is the genus, in that the all the factors involved are placed in and function within a planned logical structure, procedure of events, and system of proof, that governs the type and quality of results, and which may prove or measure the existence of the principles or properties being observed.

 

That sentence needs some work, however, the gist of a definition of the concept of scientific experiment is there. Scientific experiments may have subsidiary purposes, e.g., to show the principle or cause of a process, or to evaluate, discover, identify or measure the properties of the selected existents. A scientific experiment is a demonstration, which has a controlled logical causal structure, which control provides for the isolation or selected of facts to be observed for the purpose of the discovery, identification and validation of the causes of those facts.

...........................

Perhaps someone else has another way of conceptualizing a definition for scientific experiment.  Ralph Hertle

 

Peter,

I thank you for rediscovering and bringing forth those letters; I wanted to keep them.

Who are you? I fail to recall, and  I am pleased that you are there.

Ralph

[   ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

 

 

 

[Peter]

6 hours ago, HERTLE said:

Who are you? I fail to recall, and  I am pleased that you are there.

You are welcome. I started visiting Objectivist sites around 2000 and saved those letters and occasionally entire threads that interested me at that time. That's about it! Peter 

[Peter]

I found two other Ralph Hertle letters (that I don’t think I already re-posted) and one where he is mentioned. Peter

From: "Ralph Hertle" To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: The Case for Interventionism Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:54:26 -0400. [Jason Walker wrote: "The simplest solution to this problem would simply be for Israel to divorce church and state, and become fully secular.  There would be no need for a separate Palestinian Muslim state, as all races and religions would be treated equally under the law."]

Jason: You've written an excellent piece that correctly identifies the problem of state religion as well as the consequences of that problem. Interestingly, you show the logical, moral and practical link between the creation of new well-defined universal liberties regarding freedom of religion, and, probably, ideas in general, and the necessary consequence of the diminution of hostilities in Israel.

I think that the people of Israel, and many in Palestine as well, would welcome the new liberties. They would go for liberty in the realm of philosophical ideas in a big way. Israelis should take the lead and strike down the prohibitions that the state invokes on ideas in Israel, and remove the many other evil consequences at the same time. For example, the special favors that are granted to religionists would be removed, and the restrictions upon the rights of women and children, and the rights of property ownership and trade would be removed. Palestinians would love that. The special favors that are granted to the religious racists insofar as grants of land which did not belong to them as that was confiscated from the previous owners would be removed, and justice for the previous owners could be restored.

The USA needs to stop soothing and rubbing the phony racist Israeli egos and demand liberties for all Israelis. Islam would topple by cause of the example to be made and copied. Israel and Palestine could become one free state with the change of a few basic laws. Business would continue as usual – people would simply have more liberty. The causes for civil discontent and strife would be simultaneously removed.

Capitalism means that individuals have the freedom of ideas and action that are the cause for life. Rights are the necessary cause for life. If ideas are restricted there is nothing to correctly guide the actions of individuals insofar as the pursuit of productivity, sustenance and happiness. The religionists want controls over the minds and ideas of individuals in order to control their physical actions.

The problem with the religious states is that they cannot provide the ideas of their citizens which are the cause life for their individual citizens.

The proof is Afghanistan. They had no massive amounts of oil. Nor did they have the massive gifts of capital from the citizens and nation of the USA. Countries such as Iran, Iraq, UAE, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Libya and other Islamic nations would be no wealthier than Afghanistan, or at best Morocco, Syria or Jordan, without the infusions of wealth. Some nations have various natural resources that they depend upon. Egypt, for example, somehow supports 70 million people on an agriculture that depends, to a large extent, on the River Nile.

Without the special sources of wealth the Islamic nations as well as Israel would be poverty ridden. Israel, having more well defined liberties, is able to cause its individual citizens to use their intellects to be more productive in their own interests, and as a result, Israel prospers more than the Islamic nations. Religion, in general, prevents the use of the intellect, and religion is a primary cause for the poverty of nations.

I don't mean to tag your post on OWL, however, your ideas are of significant interest and merit a great deal of discussion. The brilliance of your idea is that the revision of a single provision in the Israeli Constitution or basic law that created new fundamental liberty would enable changes in lesser laws and, also, cause the more peaceful social conduct of the Israeli nation. Ralph Hertle

From: Ralph Hertle To: ATL Subject: ATL: Pi vs Existence? Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 10:22:02 -0400. Morganis: In what concept of number do you wish the ratio for PI to be expressed, e.g., base n, x^-n, x^n,...? A mathematician friend suggested that the number system of base 37 could work well.

I ask, "Why must PI be expressed in arithmetical terms?" Why shouldn't it be expressed in mathematical terms? I suggest that the ratio of P:C, the logical relationship of the ratio of the Perimeter to the Diameter of a circle, is the most accurate expression of PI that is possible. If a mathematical expression of the relationship is needed, then, the ratio may be expressed as a fraction, P/C. Period. I believe that the concept of PI is most accurately, rather, is absolutely, expressed as a size ratio relationship of the Perimeter of a circle to the Diameter of the circle.

Carrying out the arithmetic calculation of an algorithm to some billions of places of arithmetic decimal digits is akin to the problem of calculating infinity in that one is always required to add, or subtract, or multiply or divide, some standard amount from the extension of the number of the concept that one is dealing with. The infinity advocates strive compulsively for an endless numerical calculation as if they are searching for a reduction to science solution rather than a reduction to existence solution.

Infinity is a phony concept, and it doesn't seem to work in mathematics at all. The purpose of mathematics is to measure existents, their properties, and the relationships between same. Infinity measures nothing at all in the universe.

I suggest that the concept of a continuum replace infinity in logic and mathematics. A concept of a continuum actually identifies all Objective existents, and as such, it may be converted in certain contexts to its equivalent terms in mathematics. The concept appears to be needed in Quantum Mechanics, for example.

A continuum refers to the continuity of the existence of, or the properties of, an entity or an existent. The concept of a continuum is a corollary to the Existence and Identity axioms. For example, if you have a geometrical concept of a circle, a radius, and its diameter the properties of those existents exist continually.

The problem with the concept of infinity is that it exists having a limit to its properties, a limit to which one may add or subtract a standard unit thus creating a new limit. Infinity is proclaimed to have no property of a limit, and, in fact, without same it has no properties at all. The property that the advocates of infinity will then claim is that of a continuum of properties, e.g., that one will be able to continue adding or subtracting to the finite length or concept of number that is the original selected length or number. The fall back argument of the infinity advocates is that existents exist having a continuity of properties. But, isn't that the Aristotelian, Euclidean, and Objectivist position on the Existence and Identity Axioms in metaphysics that underlies all true geometry and mathematics!

Existence is continuous, rather than infinite.

The symbol I suggest for a continuum is the following design:

 

     A circle with a single radius line that starts from

     the center of the circle, and which extends horizontally

     to the right to touch the perimeter line of the circle.

     The overall shape resembles a letter "c".

The two concepts, infinity, and continuum, require definitions. The definitions may then be proved or not proved.

A Platonist will say, "But a continuum cannot be given number", and an Aristotelian will say that the, "universe cannot be measured".

Rand is right -- that "existence is existing." Ralph Hertle

From: Frank Bubb To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Trade Is A Free Society's Best "Weapon" Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:54:24 EDT. Within Objectivist circles there seems to be significant support for the view that the best way to deal with those societies which virulently oppose American values is to refuse to ‘sanction’ their evil by cutting them off from the benefits of dealing with our society.  See, e.g., the post entitled ‘Economic Exclusion Now’ by Ralph Hertle.

I will argue that this strategy is 180 degrees out of phase with reality, that trade is a free society’s best ‘weapon’ in the fight against dictatorship and terrorism.  From the standpoint of every dictator, trade spreads the cancer of individual independence, mutual understanding with ‘foreign devils’ and unwillingness to believe or obey the dictator.

THE POSITIVE EFFECTS OF TRADE

Most Objectivists understand the moral benefit to the individual of dealing with others by trade for mutual benefit, and the role of habits in developing a moral personality.  Regardless of one’s moral starting point, the experience of trading with others on a regular basis implicitly and often imperceptibly inculcates certain habits, such as (1) honesty, (2) productiveness (to have something worth trading), (3) dependability, (4) expecting to receive value in an exchange, (5) understanding the other party’s need to receive value in an exchange, and (6) perceiving one’s trading counterpart as a human being with similar core interests.

These benefits apply both to trade in one’s immediate locale and to trade with people in other lands.  The latter has the additional benefit of making one aware of the fact that people with very different customs and initial beliefs are still human beings (not ‘foreign devils’) who share one’s core interests. I work as general counsel for a sporting goods retailer.  One of my colleagues is in charge of importing significant quantities of sporting goods from China.  He travels regularly to China and deals extensively with various factories and trading companies.  If one of these vendors decided to ‘screw’ us, we would have no effective legal recourse. Yet these vendors are honest and deliver quality products on time.  Despite their government's policies, they and millions others like them have become part of a vast network of people who in fact operate substantially in accordance with the moral standards of modern commercial culture.

Most Objectivists readily understand that foreign aid shifts power and influence in the recipient society from the private sector toward those with political power.  It should be as readily understood that trade has the reverse effect, imperceptibly but ultimately shifting power and influence in a society toward those who engage in trade.  Traders benefit economically.  As they hire or contract with others in their society to support their trade with outsiders, they bring these others into the ambit of the habits and beliefs they have developed.

Finally, trade gives those in each society a stake in continued peaceful relations with those in the other society.  Whatever influence the trading culture in a society has at any given time, that influence will be in favor of continued trade and its prerequisite, peace.

THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF BANNING TRADE

Imposing trade sanctions against regimes or societies we oppose not only deprives Americans of the positive benefits listed above, but also imposes the following costs on us.

To the extent people are harmed by our government’s trade sanctions, the people who are harmed grow to hate the American government and, by association, the capitalist system it represents (granted, they may have hated it already, but sanctions tend to reinforce their hatred).  This hatred is not confined to the target country. A couple of my colleagues at work are from the Middle East. They confirm what is sometimes reported in our media: America’s sanctions against Iraq have inflamed hatred of America through the entire region, as stories of starving Iraqi children are a staple in media reports in that region.

Trade sanctions give dictators an excuse, a scapegoat, for the failure of their state-run economies, and create patriotic sympathy and support for the very regimes our sanctions are designed to hurt.

Finally, our government’s trade sanctions hinder its own human intelligence efforts.  To the extent that Americans have numerous contacts in a country, those contacts are a natural source of human intelligence that could benefit our government in times of emergency.  It is no accident that our government is virtually clueless about what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CONNECTING THE DOTS

This post has done nothing more than ‘connect the dots’ on some very standard Objectivist and free market theory.  Yet it runs totally counter to much of the bluster being emitted from various quarters within the Objectivist movement. Those who work themselves into a righteous froth over the Islamic world in general should ‘check their premises,’ and discover just how far they have strayed from them.  There is no reason to believe the trader principle stops at America’s borders. Frank Bubb