Land redistribution

[samr]

Would you consider land redistribution as fair in a country that has a priveleged class ? Taking the land from dukes \ from the king \ from the churh and redistributing it?

[Selene]

Sam:

Once again...it is the definitional issue.

Distribution means what?

Additionally, who is effecting the decision that results in the alleged distribution?

It seems that you tend to be unspecific when you pose questions.

For example, an attorney will ask a person on the stand, wouldn't if be fair to say _________________? It is a form of question begging. By stating is the question the implication of fair. I train my clients to respond, actually counselor, it would not be fair to say that because and then you get your facts on the record and fuck up his rhythm of questioning.

Adam

[Jonathan]

Would you consider land redistribution as fair in a country that has a priveleged class ? Taking the land from dukes \ from the king \ from the churh and redistributing it?

If a thief in your neighborhood was arrested and discovered to have a stash of property which he had stolen from you and your neighbors, would you use the term "redistribution" to describe the return of your property, or would you try to be more accurate and perhaps call it something like "restoration"?

J

[samr]

Redistribution means taking from persons X,Y,Z, and giving it to persons A,B,C,X,Y,Z.

I think it is a morally neutral term, actually "restoration" is more morally charged than "redistribution". I didn't intend to smuggle a moral evaluation. But my english is not that good, you can choose any other term.

In the case of the thief, it would fit under the above definition of "redistribution", and I would consider it just. A thief, however, is different from aristocracy/monarchy/clergy. The stealing of these groups was often done in the past, by their fathers from your fathers, and sometimes with the implicit agreement of your fathers, that believed in the divine right of kings, or the divine right of the church.

Selene, I don't know who would make the redistribution. Suppose an enlightened dictator, or an elected group of people.

[Selene]

Selene, I don't know who would make the redistribution. Suppose an enlightened dictator, or an elected group of people.

Then, by definition, it would not, and could not be "fair."

Fair, implies that citizen "A" would potentially get more, less, or the same amount of land than citizen "B" based on some standard or formulae.

What would that be? Need? Ability to develope the land to its' maximum use? Ability to preserve the land in its' most natural state?

See the problem?

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Land redistribution is fair if the land was stolen in the first place. Problem arises if the original parties are no longer alive. Then it is no longer fair since the people alive today were not guilty.

Example: American Indian claims to entire states full of people and all the wealth that has been created for hundreds of years.

[Reidy]

The return of land to the Japanese-Americans after WW2, or to former landowners after the fall of communism in eastern Europe would be examples of the opposite situation.

[john42t]

The return of land to the Japanese-Americans after WW2, [...]

Don't know much about this except that Japanese-Americans were temporarily detained.

Was also property confiscated from them and not given back after the war ended?

[...] or to former landowners after the fall of communism in eastern Europe [...]

My grandma is such a case.

[john42t]

Example: American Indian claims to entire states full of people and all the wealth that has been created for hundreds of years.

I'm wondering: What do you think about Rand's argument that no land could have been stolen from American natives as they had no concept of private property?

[Reidy]

#8: No; it was given back after the war.

[caroljane]

Example: American Indian claims to entire states full of people and all the wealth that has been created for hundreds of years.

I'm wondering: What do you think about Rand's argument that no land could have been stolen from American natives as they had no concept of private property?

She said that? "It's OK to steal from somebody as long as they don't realize it's stealing"?? Was that one of those off the cuff answers? I know she said some loopier things, but this is a new one on me.

[Philip Coates]

me--> Problem arises if the original parties are no longer alive. Then it is no longer fair since the people alive today were not guilty. Example: American Indian claims to entire states full of people and all the wealth that has been created for hundreds of years.

reidy--> The return of land to the Japanese-Americans after WW2, or to former landowners after the fall of communism in eastern Europe would be examples of the opposite situation.

Good examples!

john42t [to me]--> I'm wondering: What do you think about Rand's argument that no land could have been stolen from American natives as they had no concept of private property?

This is a quite complex issue, and there is no single sentence answer to that.

First, often the way Rand words something or the context makes a bald statement less bald. I'd like to see the exact quote and the context surrounding it.

She may have been speaking generally or off the cuff about -most- Indians. And that would be true. However, there were thousands of Indians who were farmers, working on plots of land, not just nomad hunters. They did properly own land as property.

But even speaking of the Indians who didn't have a concept of private property, this viewpoint would still be wrong for -three- reasons:

1. Property can be property even if it is not 'private': If you own something as a group, the group still has a right to it. Think not just of communes but of joint property, joint checking accounts in a marriage. Or a family-owned ranch. And what about corporate or other group ownership?

2. Even if you don't have a concept of something, if you don't grasp the need for it you still ought to have rights respected. For example, suppose the Indian thinks the buffalo he hunts and follows are owned by the "Great Spirit" in the sky. He still has the right to hunt them and skin them and eat them. Just because a lifestyle is primitive doesn't mean it has no right to exist (assuming no aggression).

3. An example of 'semi-nomadic' rights: The battle in the Old West between farmers and ranchers: Farmers claimed the right to fence off the open range everywhere. Even if the ranchers had not clearly defined the limits of the grazing territory (or migratory territory) of the great herds of cattle being driven from Texas to Kansas (or wherever), they still had some rights to *enough land to pass through* to support a cattle-raising lifestyle.

Same thing applies to nomads who hunt.

Now, that does not mean the Indians had the right to the *entire damn continent*.

Nor was the immigration of all the settlers into America "theft" merely from the fact that the Indians were already on the continent. The Indians (very few in number and very sparsely settled in North America) don't need anywhere near that much land to avoid starvation, to hunt on, etc. In principle the concept of an Indian "reservation" is not wrong. As long as it's big enough and as long as they are not driven out of their previous "happy hunting grounds" into it.

(Of course, what actually happened was a mess, a mixture and a cluster-f*** . . . as history often is. Greedy and rapacious settlers and governments often drove them off the best land and thus violated their rights. Other times the Indians declared war and burned and scalped once the white man crossed any boundary and so, to some extent, they got rightly punished for aggression. And sometimes land -was- negotiated, purchased...problem being the Indians often didn't understand what the concept of purchasing land meant.)

[john42t]

1. Property can be property even if it is not 'private': If you own something as a group, the group still has a right to it. Think not just of communes but of joint property, joint checking accounts in a marriage. Or a family-owned ranch. And what about corporate or other group ownership?

The group can own something if it's a voluntary association of free men. Native tribes don't fall into that category in regards to the land - there was no rule of law.

Here's what I could google, from some leftist site:

"Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights."

The source isn't reliable, but I can easily believe she said this. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I first read it.

The argument is important as it also applies to the middle east conflict.

[Selene]

Source: WikiQuote reguarding a Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974. Also see page 102-104 of the Book "Ayn Rand Answers". Also see Philosophy: Who Needs It Address To The Graduating Class OfThe United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - March 6, 1974

[Philip Coates]

My post #12 answers all of those points.

[samr]

I can't believe that Rand was honest in this example in her reasons. I think she was guided mainly by a wish to protect America from criticism, and not by desire to "protect individual rights".

According to her logic, if one's neighbour is a savage, one can abuse him of rights. I am not arguing against this topic; but this is so inconsistent with all of her thinking, I cannot believe she was intellectually honest.

It is very non-randian to argue that because a person doesn't recognize his own rights, he doesn't have any. Objectivism... Hello?

The historical example that I had in mind in the opening post, was Russia's revolution. Would the communists be justified in seizing land from the czar? From the aristocracy? It is very easy to slip on a slippery slope, because one can continue and ask - what about people who god priveleges from the czar? What about borgois that had priveleges? Can one demand retribution? It opens the case for an all-against-all war, but I am sure that the initial premise is true (one can seize land from the czar), and I don't see a line by which to stop.

[john42t]

It is very non-randian to argue that because a person doesn't recognize his own rights, he doesn't have any. Objectivism... Hello?

That's not the argument.

The argument that the "a person" in the piece I quoted from you isn't one: A tribe isn't a person.

I'm not hair-splitting here, this issue is fundamentally Objectivist and it's similar to the altruism issue that many people seem not to be able to grasp.

I'll explain with an example.

Put yourself into the position of a Palestinian in the Gaza strip:

You might wish to pursue a career, associate with people you admire, etc., but you can't, you're trapped. You can't even utter your own opinion freely. You're a slave to the group.

Now a leftist in the West laments your misery, but not in any way that would help you: He talks about the misery of *the* Palestinians, not yours. And who speaks for *the* Palestianians? The Hamas and their collectivist power base. Which is exactly why they won't allow you to utter your opinion. They need to be the sole representatives of the collective in order to have the West's leftists support.

That's why you can't steal land from the Palestinians: The only Palestinians who can meaningfully own any land are Israelis - only Israel as individual rights and objective law.

I chose that example because it's easier to relate to it, but the same argument holds for any tribe or collective.

Morality depends on abstract thinking.

[samr]

I'm not really sure what is the objective basis of morality. But if it's objective, then people have it even if they believe to the contrary.

You can't steal land from Hamas - but you can from individual palestinians. They don't stop being individual palestinians even if they do not consider themselves as such. (And of course, not everybody are members of Hamas).

Or do you argue that only Israel, as having a law for protecting individual rights can have individuals with moral rights?

[Philip Coates]

> "But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship..." [Ayn Rand, West Point Q&A]

Distinguish between party A's internal system for use or ownership of something and the idea that something wrong with their system allows B to step in and seize it all: Even if A's system of land allocation is unjust (tribal chief 'owns' everything) or irrational (primogeniture) or non-Objectivist ( a kibbutz), that doesn't give an outsider the right to take it away and leave the occupants or tribe impoverished, starving, without a way to live.

It is seldom that Rand is *completely wrong* about something. But this is one of those cases.

> The historical example that I had in mind in the opening post, was Russia's revolution. Would the communists be justified in seizing land from the czar? From the aristocracy? It is very easy to slip on a slippery slope, because one can continue and ask - what about people who got privileges from the czar? What about bourgeois that had privileges? Can one demand retribution? It opens the case for an all-against-all war, but I am sure that the initial premise is true (one can seize land from the czar), and I don't see a line by which to stop. [samr]

My original answer was "Land redistribution is fair if the land was stolen in the first place. Problem arises if the original parties are no longer alive. Then it is no longer fair since the people alive today were not guilty. " [Post 6]

I'd modify the last sentence when it is not a 'one-on-one' situation but an original seizure or dispossession on a massive scale, such as the whole regime-wide system, even though "the people alive today [are] not guilty":

In Robin Hood's time, the King of England pretty much? owned all the forests and England was covered by forests. So you couldn't go out and hunt, which was a main way of getting meat. You can't say "Oh well, you can't redistribute because it was so long ago, the original parties are dead." In this case, you can and indeed morally must take all that land away from the king (and in an objectivo - libertarian world, auction it off or have a lottery or something).

It's quite common for kings or czars or emperors or pharaoh to seize huge portions of the entire country for themselves or their cronies. While the aristocratic descendants didn't do the stealing, still those giant estates covering entire counties or the equivalent, while the serfs have no land to live on - or they farm by permission or by sharecropping, those massive lands -were- improperly taken. You -would- redistribute, leaving the descendants of the dukes or earls or counts with reduced-size estates, enough to live on. The details are complex and I certainly haven't thought them all through.

Give Marie Antoinette and her lover the Marquis de Sade a nice little apartment in Paris and an acre or two of farmland to sell or do what they wish. But the entire region of Normandy which she owned (I'm making up names and details, here) is repossessed.

[john42t]

Or do you argue that only Israel, as having a law for protecting individual rights can have individuals with moral rights?

Only Israel has individuals with rights (in that region).

I don't live in the Gaza strip myself, but I'm quite sure that there are no rights to be found there.

If I would, I'd have reason to pray that Rand's reasoning would be understood by the West: It would be my only chance of survival save fleeing.

[Selene]

She said that? "It's OK to steal from somebody as long as they don't realize it's stealing"?? Was that one of those off the cuff answers? I know she said some loopier things, but this is a new one on me.

Carol:

I always found this piece of "history" amusing, Rush Limbaugh explained the following :

How many of you believe that we actually swindled Indians when we bought Manhattan from them?

I've always thought that 'til I read this book.

It's called Commissioner Roosevelt:The Story of Theodore Roosevelt and the New York City Police, 1895 to 1897, by H. Paul Jeffers.

And here is the relevant paragraph: "A persuasive case can be made that the city of New York began with a swindle.

For generations school children have been taught that a slick trick was played on unsuspecting Indians by the director of the Dutch West India Company, Peter Minuit.

In 1626 he purchased the island of 'Manna-hatin' for sixty gilders worth of trinkets, about twenty-four dollars.

What Minuit did not know at the time, however, was that his masterful real estate deal had been struck with the Canarsie tribe, residents of Long Island; they held no title to the land they sold to the Dutch. In due course, the intruders from Amsterdam who thought they had pulled a sharp one on the locals were forced into negotiating a second, more costly deal with the true landlords."

So it was the Indians that pulled the real estate scam when they sold Manhattan because the ones that sold it didn't own it. We got taken. I have to straighten all of this out on this type of show on this day.

And this set the stage for the revenge!

Remember the Maine! Hell, remember the Canarsie!

Adam

chuckling, tucking and rolling from incoming fire from the North

[caroljane]

She said that? "It's OK to steal from somebody as long as they don't realize it's stealing"?? Was that one of those off the cuff answers? I know she said some loopier things, but this is a new one on me.

Carol:

I always found this piece of "history" amusing, Rush Limbaugh explained the following :

How many of you believe that we actually swindled Indians when we bought Manhattan from them?

I've always thought that 'til I read this book.

It's called Commissioner Roosevelt:The Story of Theodore Roosevelt and the New York City Police, 1895 to 1897, by H. Paul Jeffers.

And here is the relevant paragraph: "A persuasive case can be made that the city of New York began with a swindle.

For generations school children have been taught that a slick trick was played on unsuspecting Indians by the director of the Dutch West India Company, Peter Minuit.

In 1626 he purchased the island of 'Manna-hatin' for sixty gilders worth of trinkets, about twenty-four dollars.

What Minuit did not know at the time, however, was that his masterful real estate deal had been struck with the Canarsie tribe, residents of Long Island; they held no title to the land they sold to the Dutch. In due course, the intruders from Amsterdam who thought they had pulled a sharp one on the locals were forced into negotiating a second, more costly deal with the true landlords."

So it was the Indians that pulled the real estate scam when they sold Manhattan because the ones that sold it didn't own it. We got taken. I have to straighten all of this out on this type of show on this day.

And this set the stage for the revenge!

Remember the Maine! Hell, remember the Canarsie!

Adam

chuckling, tucking and rolling from incoming fire from the North

Oh, Adam, you don't still listen to Limbaugh do you? You were making so much progress!

Carol

Staunch within the Library Yurt

[Selene]

Oh, Adam, you don't still listen to Limbaugh do you? You were making so much progress!

Carol

Staunch within the Library Yurt

Carol:

Have you ever listened to him for two (2) consecutive weeks? [10 days x 3 hours = 30 hours, 1800 minutes, actually without the commercials, 1200 minutes].

A simple yes or no works.

Adam

[caroljane]

Oh, Adam, you don't still listen to Limbaugh do you? You were making so much progress!

Carol

Staunch within the Library Yurt

Carol:

Have you ever listened to him for two (2) consecutive weeks? [10 days x 3 hours = 30 hours, 1800 minutes, actually without the commercials, 1200 minutes].

A simple yes or no works.

Adam

Cumulatively on long car trips I have listened to him for , say, two hours. Felt like much longer,

[Mikee]

She said that? "It's OK to steal from somebody as long as they don't realize it's stealing"?? Was that one of those off the cuff answers? I know she said some loopier things, but this is a new one on me.

Carol:

I always found this piece of "history" amusing, Rush Limbaugh explained the following :

How many of you believe that we actually swindled Indians when we bought Manhattan from them?

I've always thought that 'til I read this book.

It's called Commissioner Roosevelt:The Story of Theodore Roosevelt and the New York City Police, 1895 to 1897, by H. Paul Jeffers.

And here is the relevant paragraph: "A persuasive case can be made that the city of New York began with a swindle.

For generations school children have been taught that a slick trick was played on unsuspecting Indians by the director of the Dutch West India Company, Peter Minuit.

In 1626 he purchased the island of 'Manna-hatin' for sixty gilders worth of trinkets, about twenty-four dollars.

What Minuit did not know at the time, however, was that his masterful real estate deal had been struck with the Canarsie tribe, residents of Long Island; they held no title to the land they sold to the Dutch. In due course, the intruders from Amsterdam who thought they had pulled a sharp one on the locals were forced into negotiating a second, more costly deal with the true landlords."

So it was the Indians that pulled the real estate scam when they sold Manhattan because the ones that sold it didn't own it. We got taken. I have to straighten all of this out on this type of show on this day.

And this set the stage for the revenge!

Remember the Maine! Hell, remember the Canarsie!

Adam

chuckling, tucking and rolling from incoming fire from the North

Oh, Adam, you don't still listen to Limbaugh do you? You were making so much progress!

Carol

Staunch within the Library Yurt

LOL! If you averaged the viewpoints on the various objectivist websites (those who claim to be objectivist) and compared them to Rush Limbaugh's views, Rush would be the better objectivist.