RoR: Forum

This quote is from memory, it is accurate in its sense, if not its exact wording.

Of course, it need not be repeated that not all Arabs are m*slims, nor are all m*slims Arabs. But if this quote is even close to true, it is worth pondering.

Wright has written on 9/11, here at Amazon.

Ted

Post 1

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:09pm

At the risk of exposing my naivete I have to say I don�t get this quotation.

Post 2

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:31pm

The statement was interesting to me because, if true, it's pretty amazing simply from a statistical point of view. Wright made the statement while volunteering why the 9-11 hijackers might resent America. I'm not interested in the acumen of Wright's analysis, just the accuracy and implications of this supposed fact. You have to be working pretty damn hard not to produce one sixtieth of what a Finn does. And no offense to Finns!

Ted Keer

Post 3

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:41pm

Post 4

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:30pm

I think the whole point is that if the world would stop buying their old, the barbarians would starve to death.

Post 5

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:33pm

Exactly! Now, if only we had some pretense under which we could start a war so that we could steal it from them, rather than paying for it...

Oops!

Post 6

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:53pm

Or we could have stopped this a long time ago. The Arabs (why do I hate calling them that?) didn�t know what the hell to do with that oil until we got there in the first place. Isn�t that the real issue?

Post 7

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:59pm

You dislike the term because it is inaccurate. Arabs are an ethnic group sharing a common language. They are not all members of one religion. They do not all live in oil-rich lands. And not all oil-rich lands of the Mideast are inhabited by Arabs.

The enemy is not Araby, it is isl@m.

Ted

Post 8

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 12:28am

Ted:

Which Finnish hockey player is it that's worth more than a camel's butt load of Bedouins?

Tyson

Post 9

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 7:39am

Exactly! Now, if only we had some pretense under which we could start a war so that we could steal it from them, rather than paying for it...

Oops!

What's infuriating Ted about our dependence on foreign oil is that collectivism is the reason why we even have to buy oil from morally repulsive regimes in the first place. The government could lift the ban on new nuclear power plant construction that has existed since Carter (all the more reason to hate Carter) The government can lift the ban on drilling for more oil right here on US soil (we have a lot of untapped oil reserves in almost all 50 states of the union).

I live in Southeastern CT not far from a nuclear submarine base and close to Millstone Nuclear power plant, whenever I hear some idiot in my area complain about the dangers of having a nuclear power plant in our area, I kindly remind them we have 13 floating nuclear power plants in the nearby river. And how many meltdowns has the navy had since the first nuclear naval ship was constructed? Once again, environmentalists are the scum of the Earth and the reason why we still buy from oil from the Middle east, they are about as bad as Islamo-Fascists.

Post 10

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 1:46pm

Exactly! Now, if only we had some pretense under which we could start a war so that we could steal it from them, rather than paying for it.

We're not stealing anything. They don't own that oil, just because it happens to exist in their geographical region of the world. They didn't produce it; the American, British and French petroleum companies produced it, and it is they who have a right to it.

As Robert Tracinski notes, the so-called "blood for oil is the gruesome equation that has ruled the Middle East for the past five decades--our oil, stolen by the Saudis and used to spill our blood.

"The Saudis did not create their oil fields. The oil was discovered and drilled for by American, British and French oil companies. These firms were the rightful owners of the oil, and until the 1950s, their rights were mostly respected.

"The Arab chieftains who ruled the region had no idea the oil was there and no idea what to use it for; they were still riding camels. But once the West discovered the oil and put it to use--running our factories and automobiles--the chieftains began to tax the oil. When that wasn't enough, they simply stole the oil fields, beginning with the de facto nationalization of the Saudi oil fields in 1950. The House of Saud did not seize the oil in the name of the 'the people'; they seized it to enrich a small gang of princes and hangers-on.

"If someone were to propose, today, that such a vast amount of wealth be seized for the sole benefit of a single family of feudal aristocracy, the Western world would rise up to oppose the idea. So why accept such a situation after the fact?

"Worse, consider what the Saudis did with their ill-gotten gains. The Saudi common man is still poor; not much of the oil loot trickles down to him. But plenty of money goes to indolent Saudi princes--and, through them, to the religious fanatics who attack America." ("Blood for Oil," from the Ayn Rand Institute's Website, August 7, 2002.)

- Bill

Post 11

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 5:50pm

Tyson, sorry, all I did was google the words "Finn" and "bedouin" and then post the smallest images of individuals I could find.

"I kindly remind them we have 13 floating nuclear power plants in the nearby river." sanctioned

I assume it is obvious that my statement about "stealing" was ironic. I have had occasion to try to calmly explain to antibushites that the "Food for Oil" program was in actuality Iraqi blood for UN oil kickbacks, and that Bush is the one who gets credit at least for putting a stop at least to that.

I'm amenable to gradually substituting a tax on fossil fuels and plastic packaging for the federal income tax. And while I don't see a way now to seize the oil fields from those Mideastern states which nationalized the capital of their Western benefactors, I certainly don't believe that they have any right to it.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/16, 5:51pm)

Post 12

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 8:44pm

Bill Dwyer wrote:

We're not stealing anything. They don't own that oil, just because it happens to exist in their geographical region of the world. They didn't produce it; the American, British and French petroleum companies produced it, and it is they who have a right to it.

I can appreciate the sentiment, but don't totally agree. I'll explain why in connection with Saudi Arabia, about which I'm most familiar. By the way Tracinski's list of countries omitted the Dutch (Shell Oil). Also, American oil companies had all or nearly all the oil/gas concessions in Saudi Arabia, and they had minimal concessions elsewhere in the region.

Tracinski's claims that the western oil companies were taxed "after the fact", and that the Saudi oil fields were nationalized in 1950, are very misleading. An American oil company signed a concession (a contract of sorts) with the head of the Saudi government in 1933 to seach for and drill for oil. The company paid upfront money, with contractual promises of more if a discovery were made, and contractual promises of more for the amount of oil extracted. The concession was for 60 years, i.e. until 1993.

Later on the Saudi government, given the magnitude of the discoveries and greed, demanded revising the concession agreement. Given a sovereign government versus a foreign private company with no assistance from the US government, it is not suprising who had the leverage. The concession was revised more than once -- partly due to more American oil companies entering the deal -- and eventually the Saudi goverment took full control in 1988. (The agreement signed in 1980 wasn't fully implemented until 1988. Also, the American companies continue dealing with Saudi Aramco to this day as customers). A brief history is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramco

Let's consider. In 1993 the Saudi government could have terminated their relationship with the American oil companies totally under the terms of the concession. Suppose that happened hypothetically. Of course, the American companies would have a good argument that they should be entitled to more money because they signed revisions to the original concession under duress. But would they be morally entitled to take over the oil fields entirely?

Allow me an analogy. Suppose Bill Dwyer (or the reader) owned land and made a 10-year agreement with an oil company to explore for and extract oil on his land. The amount of oil is beyond expectation, or the price of oil rises sharply, and after nearly 10 years Bill Dwyer (or the reader) thinks he can get a far more favorable deal with a different oil company. However, after 10 years the present oil company says, "No, you can't do that. It's not your oil. We found it and did all the work." If the oil comany refused to leave and continued to extract oil, would it "not be stealing anything"?

Also, who is the "we" in "We're not stealing anything."? It sounds rather collectivist to me. :-) Is it the U.S. government or other Americans who had nothing to do with the oil commpanies who found and extracted the oil? Yet they wouldn't be "stealing anything"?

If this sounds antagonistic, that is not my intent. I believe there is an interesting issue of property rights here. And, of course, if we did go to war with Saudi Arabia, then arguably it wouldn't be "stealing", but "to the victor goes the spoils" or "all is fair in love and war".

Post 13

Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 7:24am

Let's consider. In 1993 the Saudi government could have terminated their relationship with the American oil companies totally under the terms of the concession...

...after 10 years the present oil company says, "No, you can't do that. It's not your oil. We found it and did all the work." If the oil comany refused to leave and continued to extract oil, would it "not be stealing anything"?

No, because one the Saudi government was never a legitimate government. And two a government established by an autocrat doesn't give him complete property rights to the entire country or any right to property for that matter. He's a tyrant that doesn't deserve to exist. That land was originally taken by an illegitimate government to be used for oil exploration so it was stolen property to begin with.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/17, 7:26am)

Post 14

Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 8:43am

John Armaos wrote:

No, because one the Saudi government was never a legitimate government. And two a government established by an autocrat doesn't give him complete property rights to the entire country or any right to property for that matter. He's a tyrant that doesn't deserve to exist. That land was originally taken by an illegitimate government to be used for oil exploration so it was stolen property to begin with.

While not "legitimate" in your view, it was a "recognized" one, regarded by the local people, other governments, and the American oil companies as the legitimate government for most of the Arabian peninsula. Using your idea of legitimate, how many legitimate governments have there ever been?

Per this Wikipedia article the Saudi state emerged in the 18th century, although King Abdul Aziz bin Saud, who signed the earliest oil/gas concessions, gained power using force (mainly against other users of force) in the first quarter of the 20th century. Your last sentence is blatantly false. The relevant land was declared the territory of the Saudi government long before oil was found or even suspected to be there. Nor was the land stolen from others in any significant sense. The relevant land -- only a small part of the country on its eastern side -- was used only by a few Bedouins (desert nomads) who regarded land as "communal property."

Using your idea of "legitimate", I suspect that even the U.S. government could be regarded as "illegitimate". After all, it did usurp land from Native American Indians, who regarded land as "communal property."

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 5/17, 8:48am)

Post 15

Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 9:34am

Merlin,

Is it your view that the Saudi government owns the land and therefore whatever natural resources lie beneath it, and that because they own it, they can demand a portion of the revenues gained from exploiting those resources? I should think that, as an Objectivist, you would recognize that they don't. Your analogy with my owning land and making a deal with an oil company is bogus. Individuals have property rights to land and natural resources; governments don't.

As for the "we didn't steal anything remark," I was simply using Ted's language (not realizing that he was being facetious). "We" meant U.S. citizens, including the American oil companies. For some reason, you seem to be overreacting to my remarks, nitpicking at details that really have little to do with the main point, which is that Western interests are not unfairly robbing Mid East oil from its "rightful owners."

- Bill

Post 16

Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 10:47am

Bill Dwyer wrote:

Is it your view that the Saudi government owns the land and therefore whatever natural resources lie beneath it, and that because they own it, they can demand a portion of the revenues gained from exploiting those resources?

Yes, with qualification. There was no prior existing ownership claim on the land. But more important, the American oil companies recognized it as the legitimate owner, and made a voluntary contract with it to pay said revenues. I believe one must accept some particular situation and time as a legitimate starting point, ignoring the history prior to then. If you don't, it usually leads to an infinite regress such as: Well, X is not a legitimate owner because X did this, or X is not a legitimate owner because X acquired it from Y, who was not a legitimate owner, and so on.

Your analogy with my owning land and making a deal with an oil company is bogus. Individuals have property rights to land and natural resources; governments don't.

Why is it bogus and why only individuals? Business corporations own property. Are you saying that a government is not even entitled to own the land where it operates, such as a courthouse or military base? And imagine a collection of people, all utilizing "communal property", decide to form a local government and turn the "communal property" into government property. Would that be illegitimate?

As for the "we didn't steal anything remark," I was simply using Ted's language (not realizing that he was being facetious). "We" meant U.S. citizens, including the American oil companies. For some reason, you seem to be overreacting to my remarks, nitpicking at details that really have little to do with the main point, which is that Western interests are not unfairly robbing Mid East oil from its "rightful owners."

Fine. I agree that Western interests have not unfairly robbed Mid East oil from its "rightful owners." More exactly, my reaction was to your saying:

They don't own that oil, just because it happens to exist in their geographical region of the world. They didn't produce it; the American, British and French petroleum companies produced it, and it is they who have a right to it.

That's why I made the analogy of you "simply existing in the geographical region" and the oil company having all the rights because it did all of the work.

Post 17

Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 1:45pm

Merlin wrote:

While not "legitimate" in your view, it was a "recognized" one

Recognizing a government does not make it a legitimate government. Let's talk about some of the recognized governments in history, the Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Fidel's Castro, Pol Pot's Cambodia, all of these were recognized governments but none of them were legitimate. A government is only legitimate if it respects man's rights.

Using your idea of legitimate, how many legitimate governments have there ever been?

Quite a few. Any government that respects man's rights is legitimate. While the ones that do are indeed flawed, they are no where near as comparable to any authoritarian government around the world such as Saudi Arabia. Legitimate governments include the United States, all of the European Union nations, Japan, Australia, etc. Freedom House would be an excellent source for what we could consider a legitimate government.

Your last sentence is blatantly false. The relevant land was declared the territory of the Saudi government long before oil was found or even suspected to be there. Nor was the land stolen from others in any significant sense. The relevant land -- only a small part of the country on its eastern side -- was used only by a few Bedouins (desert nomads) who regarded land as "communal property."

No illegitimate government can lay claim to unclaimed land. Actually no government legitimate or not can lay claim to land. A legitimate government can sell off unclaimed land to highest bidders (if the land is unclaimed) That the Saud family who took power illegitimately, took this land, means it was an immoral act, whether we call this theft or not is a matter of semantics, it was indeed immoral and by no means could the Saud family legitimately consider that their land.

Using your idea of "legitimate", I suspect that even the U.S. government could be regarded as "illegitimate". After all, it did usurp land from Native American Indians, who regarded land as "communal property."

Most Objectivists have a pretty understandable working definition of what is a legitimate government. By no means can we consider the Native Americans prior to the establishment of the United States as having a legitimate government. Last I checked there was no Native American constitution that respected property rights prior to the establishment of the United States?
(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/17, 1:48pm)

Post 18

Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 2:34pm

After some period, usage and possession have to be seen as establishing title, otherwise one could challenge almost all land titles. There is a reason for having a statute of limitations, and the legitimacy of a title established through possession and use is a logical corollary thereof. I'm not necessarily prepared to make that specific argument in this specific case. But there is a good reason for the convention of the 99 year lease. Jihad itself is an attempt to establish a timeless contextless universal legitimacy through the technique of a war of all against all. Certainly one can argue that some states and many governments are to a significant extent "illegitimate" if one uses the libertarian ideal as one's guidestick. But is the libertarian willing to wipe the political slate clean and begin the state again from scratch in a universal revolution?

One can, if one likes, view the world political map as an instance of collective original sin. Sometimes, it is better to forgive such sins than to demand impossible reckonings and endless retribution.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/17, 3:21pm)

Post 19

Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 5:48pm