About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Friday, May 18, 2007 - 12:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote (to 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?" He replied,
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.
According to Objectivism,
It is the proper task of the government to protect individual rights and, as part of it, to formulate the laws by which these rights are to be implemented and adjudicated. It is the government's responsibility to define the application of individual rights to a given sphere of activity -- to define (i.e., to identify), not to create, invent, donate or expropriate. The question of defining the application of property rights has arisen frequently, in the wake of major scientific discoveries or inventions, such as the question of oil rights, vertical space rights, etc. In most cases, the American government was guided by the proper principle: it sought to protect all the individual rights involved, not to abrogate them.

A notable example of the proper method of establishing private ownership from scratch, in a previously ownerless area, is the Homestead Act of 1862, by which the government opened the Western frontier for settlement and turned "public land" over to private owners. The government offered a 160-acres farm to any adult citizen who would settle on it and cultivate it for five years, after which it would become his property. Although that land was originally regarded, in law, as "public property," the method of its allocation, in fact, followed the proper principle (in fact, but not in explicit ideological intention). The citizens did not have to pay the government as if it were an owner; ownership began with them, and they earned it by the method which is the source and root of the concept of "property"; by working on unused material resources, by turning a wilderness into a civilized settlement. Thus, the government, in this case, was acting not as the owner but as the custodian of ownerless resources who defines objectively impartial rules by which potential owners may acquire them. (Ayn Rand, "The Property Status of Airwaves," The Objectivist Newsletter, April, 1964)
I wrote, "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.
Did you really think that I was excluding business corporations from the category of "individuals"? If so, do you also believe that individual rights don't apply to corporations? For a refutation of the view that corporations are not voluntary associations of individuals, see Robert Hessen's In Defense of the Corporation.
Are you saying that a government is not even entitled to own the land where it operates, such as a courthouse or military base?
No, and please accept my apologies for the poorly worded reply. What I should have said is that ownership begins with individuals' working to transform an unused natural resource into a useable product or service; it doesn't begin with a government's fiat claim to ownership of land or property that it has not earned through its own productive efforts, which is not to say that a government cannot legitimately acquire property by working an unowned natural resource or by obtaining property voluntarily from those who have. The point is that a proper government, according to Objectivism, has no right to property that it has not acquired by the same principles that apply to private individuals.
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?
No, not if the property were legitimately acquired, according to the above criteria.

- Bill

Post 21

Friday, May 18, 2007 - 5:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill D.,
I agree with your citation from Rand, and believe that the last sentence is especially relevant regarding the land in Saudi Arabia where oil was later to be discovered. Probably not in exemplary fashion, but the Saudi government was acting as the custodian of the land. The land wasn't entirely "ownerless"; there were a few Bedouins living in the area with a sort of de facto ownership. However it came to be, the Saudi government was recognized as the custodian/owner. It had not expropriated the land from the Bedouins in the manner of expelling them and immediately using it for some other purpose. It was probably regarded as spokesman for the Bedouins, among whom there was no significant central authority. In granting a concession to American oil companies it "defined" who could search for oil -- the American companies but not the British or Dutch -- and acted as spokesman for the Bedouins to protect their rights.
Did you really think that I was excluding business corporations from the category of "individuals"? If so, do you also believe that individual rights don't apply to corporations? For a refutation of the view that corporations are not voluntary associations of individuals, see Robert Hessen's In Defense of the Corporation.
No, but it wasn't at all clear from what you wrote. I do regard corporations as voluntary associations of individuals. But I also believe that a government can be a voluntary association of individuals. I give as one example the U.S. government initially. I give as my second what I tried to describe here:
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?
 to which you replied:
No, not if the property were legitimately acquired, according to the above criteria.
I apologize if I wasn't clear enough, but I don't believe you answered my question. The communal property ("public property" in Rand's words you quoted) was not previously unused or conquered. Homesteading was not appropriate and impractical. It was a resource they had all been using (e.g. a lake or hunting grounds), perhaps improving it, and they merely transferred it to their own government's property in order to facilitate its management and exclude encroachers.


Post 22

Friday, May 18, 2007 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin:

John A. wrote:



No illegitimate government can lay claim to unclaimed land.


Don't you mean "should" instead of "can"? As written the sentence is clearly false, for the fact is that the Saudi government did so.


Yes of course I should have said "should". But I think you know what I mean. Just as no criminal "should" be able to beat you and steal your money, no government that is authoritative and tyrannical "should" be able to claim unclaimed land.

By no means can we consider the Native Americans prior to the establishment of the United States as having a legitimate government.


I have not claimed they had a legitimate government. It was you who introduced "legitimate", and I only probed to see what you meant by it. But since you seem to want to divert the discussion -- like to the govt of the Soviet Union and Cuba -- I can, too. Don't you think there are big differences between recognized and legitimate? Suppose you were to travel to a country with a government you probably regard as illegitimate, say, China. Would you refuse to recognize its rule about getting a visa or the commands of a Chinese policeman? :-)


Merlin the term "legitimate government" is nothing new to Objectivism. And I introduced the term to make with you the distinction that "recognition" of a government does not give it "legitimacy". So the Saud family was recognized as the government of Saudi Arabia did not at all "legitimize" that government and by no means can we say that government has any rights to oil. If the U.S. did invade Saudi Arabia (which I'm not necessarily suggesting but I'm open to hear arguments for and against) it would be within America's right to forcibly take those oil fields and hand them over to the only people who rightfully can make any legitimate claim to them, that being the American, British and French petroleum companies. And yes I do think there's a big difference between recognition and legitimacy don't you? Do you think Fidel's Cuba is a legitimate government because it's recognized by the U.N.? I personally don't think a majority opinion necessitates legitimacy.

As far as paying attention to a Chinese policeman, makes no difference whether that Chinese policeman is working for a legitimate government or not. I probably would comply to his commands simply because I would not want to be imprisoned (of course that would depend on what it is he's asking me to comply to). But similarly, I pay my taxes in this country because I want to avoid imprisonment, but it does not mean I think the government has a legitimate claim to my income. So I don't understand the relevancy of your question. Just because I may comply to a government's command does not mean I think it is right that they command me to do so.


Post 23

Friday, May 18, 2007 - 4:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John A. wrote:

Merlin the term "legitimate government" is nothing new to Objectivism.
I can't recall having read the term "legitimate government" in Ayn Rand's writing. In the excerpts in the Lexicon, subject Government, that term is not used. She did use proper government, but I doubt you'd say that any of the examples of governments you consider "legitimate" are "proper" in the strong sense she conveyed.
And I introduced the term to make with you the distinction that "recognition" of a government does not give it "legitimacy". So the Saud family was recognized as the government of Saudi Arabia did not at all "legitimize" that government and by no means can we say that government has any rights to oil.
Fine. Except you used "legitimate" in a sense of protecting rights to an appreciable degree. In contrast the first time I used it was in post 14: "it [the Saudi govt] 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." Said companies regarded the Saudi government having some rights to any oil, else why would they have agreed to pay it? Clearly, my using "legitimate" was a different sense than yours.
And yes I do think there's a big difference between recognition and legitimacy don't you? Do you think Fidel's Cuba is a legitimate government because it's recognized by the U.N.? I personally don't think a majority opinion necessitates legitimacy.
To echo Ayn Rand "legitimate" by what standard? I did not use "legitimate" by your standards or mine or Ayn Rand's. Of course, per the U.N. there is little difference between "recognized" and "legitimate." In case there is any doubt, no, Fidel's govt is not a legitimate one in my view.
As far as paying attention to a Chinese policeman, makes no difference whether that Chinese policeman is working for a legitimate government or not.
In other words, you would recognize the government, which is what the American oil companies did.
So I don't understand the relevancy of your question. Just because I may comply to a government's command does not mean I think it is right that they command me to do so.
Maybe the personnel of the American oil companies thought similarly, but they did not act that way. Like you (hypothetically).


Post 24

Friday, May 18, 2007 - 9:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin:

I can't recall having read the term "legitimate government" in Ayn Rand's writing. In the excerpts in the Lexicon, subject Government, that term is not used. She did use proper government, but I doubt you'd say that any of the examples of governments you consider "legitimate" are "proper" in the strong sense she conveyed.


Merlin unfortunately I am currently moving and have all my books packed. But I do believe when Rand mentioned proper governments she quite often used the term "legitimate" when discussing what the proper functions of a government are. I have often seen the term "legitimate" used in ARI writings as well discussing governments which are illegitimate such as Iran. I believe it is reasonable to make a distinction between governments that are mostly proper, and that we can call them what they are essentially, which are "legitimate" or if you prefer I use the term "proper" governments. Legitimate governments today are Liberal Democracies. These are by no means perfect governments, they are indeed flawed, but by today's comparisons to other more authoritative governments like Iran or Cuba, Liberal Democracies are light years ahead in respecting man's rights.

you used "legitimate" in a sense of protecting rights to an appreciable degree. In contrast the first time I used it was in post 14


Ah but you see, I was using it in post 13 and it seems you took "legitimate" out of context. I thought the context of my post conveyed what was meant by "legitimate" government not to mention the term "legitimate" usually means "justified" or "proper".

Said companies regarded the Saudi government having some rights to any oil, else why would they have agreed to pay it?


Why not agree to the Saud extortion and call it rights if it meant they could exploit these oil fields that no one else had owned before them? Look take this example for instance; you are a farmer living in the Arabian penninsula, you come across land that no one owns and that no one has claimed. You have every right to lay claim to this land if you intend to make productive use of it. Then all of a sudden some tyrant comes by and extorts from you money so that you can procure productive rights to this land. So you're like wait a minute Mr. tyrant, you didn't do jack shit to this land and you were never here! You never owned it before! No matter says the tyrant "I am the dictator of Arabia and assume ownership to just about anything I say is mine"

Is that ok to you? Is the Saud family justified in doing this? I should hope you think not and recognize it as immoral. The oil companies always were the legitimate owners of these oil fields because they were the only ones with the knowledge and ability to make any use of this otherwise unclaimed lands, the Saud family just extorted money from these companies to give them permission to drill without an army showing up and shooting them.

As far as paying attention to a Chinese policeman, makes no difference whether that Chinese policeman is working for a legitimate government or not.


In other words, you would recognize the government, which is what the American oil companies did.


Are you just trying to goad me into a semantics game or what? Yes fine I would recognize the government for what it was, a tyranny that had no legitimate power over me. Legitimate meaning justified. I'm not exactly using this term in some uncommonly accepted form here so I don't know what is your problem. So again, recognizing a government doesn't make it legitimate. I don't wish to get into anymore semantics discussion here. Here's an online dictionary if you'd like the definitions of "legitimate" and "recognition":

http://dictionary.reference.com/









Post 25

Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin, I think in addition to the Homestead Act (and its predecessor the Northwest and Land Ordinances) whch apply to land, we have some other models in American history...a series of "mining acts" which define and protect property in mineral and other natural resources.

The principle in regard to the Saudis (and other Middle Eastern countries by the way...lets not only talk about the Saudis) is that they were not at all acting as proper custodians of the rights of others who came and created or mined or uncovered or developed wealth but were in effect -nationalizing- the assets for their own governmental profit.

A property owner under homesteading and mining acts gets to keep -all- the profits, gets to determine use and disposal, and all the other implications of full property rights.

If the Western governments (or oil companies) had acquiesced to the sort of socialism that has occurred, they shouldn't have. Or subsequent Western governments should have repudiated their acquiescence in some degree or form...

As far as the Bedouins are concerned, they are in exactly the same situation, property-wise, as the American Indians. The latter couldn't lay claim to an entire undeveloped continent or future uses they never envisioned. They do have some property rights, to their land and grazing rights and hunting areas and so forth but not to either restrict all other uses, or to claim a piece of all the untapped wealth under the earth or in the factories built atop it.

The concrete is slightly different for mineral or liquid wealth under Arab sands, but the principle is the same.

Post 26

Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 10:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

Thanks for your comments on the land ordinances and on the mining acts which define and protect mineral rights and other natural resources. I was not aware of these.

In any case, I don't see how people can have property rights to land simply because they happen to hunt on it or roam over it. Property rights imply the right to exclude non-owners. Did the American Indians have the right to exclude the early settlers from the land over which the Indians roamed and hunted? If they owned it, they did. But that's absurd. There were certain tribes who engaged in farming, who could be said to own the plots of land on which they cultivated their crops. But owning the vast stretches of wilderness that they traveled over in search of game? No.

- Bill

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 2:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, most tribes did exert exclusive rights to hunt within various territories and according to recognized landmarks which served as boundaries. Interlopers were killed. Tribes were often named by the bodies of water which bounded their territories. "Mi-" and Mini-" in tribal names often means "water." Of course, while this hunting on the land would not be seen as improvement according to the legal definition, it was technically defended possession.

America made many treaties with Indian tribes which it subsequently abrogated. The history is shameful. But these are matters that happened long ago, and as I said above, the statute of limitations concept applies.

===

I find the continued assertion of idealistic arguments about whether or not native peoples have "ownership" of land according to Objectivist principles a lot of uninformed armchair legalizing. Property, and especially real estate law has a very large number of established concepts that have shown their validity in the real world. Given that areas of the tropics today are still held by hunter-gatherers, should we as card-carrying capitalists lay claim to large tracts of Indonesia, the Amazon, the Congo and New Guinea? Never mind the head hunters!

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn (where no one farms) that I'd like to sell, if anyone's interested.

When we get to the Moon or start colonizing Antarctica, then we'll actually have a good test case.

Ted Keer

[I am searching for a postable image, about half of the US had farming culture prior to European arrival. Both the Pilggrims and the Jamestown colonies were met by corn farming indigenous people.

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/19, 8:58pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I am observing an enormous difficulty with applying the Law of Identity on this thread.

Saying that a totalitarian government is not a legitimate government, then claiming property rights for breach of contract as if it were a good government based on individual rights is nothing more than trying to impose wishful thinking on the world. Bad governments will not stop existing because someone wishes them to or doesn't think they are "legitimate" (which, as used here, is nothing more than a magic word like a magic spell that is supposed to miraculously change the reality of foreign governments). If oil companies decided to make a deal with a totalitarian government, they were not stupid. They knew what it was going in. If such a country is not legitimate, what the hell were the oil companies signing contracts for? They did so voluntarily. Were the oil companies somehow breaking the law? Which law?

Existence exists, folks. A is A and all that.

There is a Rand quote somewhere talking about this very point (Law of Identity and refusing to recognize the existence of totalitarian governments). In so far as it is possible for a government to be an entity, it is one (if I remember correctly, Rand called it an artificial entity or something like that). There are good entities and bad entities. I remember this point also being discussed in the same passage. I suppose I could find that quote later.

I have no problem with war when needed, although I hate it. I do have a big problem with going to war using property rights as justification for a case where voluntary business was transacted between a private company and a foreign government and jurisdiction was granted by the parties-to-contract to the foreign government. This breaches the Law of Identity at the root.

 

There is only one case where this would be admissible: if there were a contractual clause signed by the foreign government granting jurisdiction over the agreement to the USA government and the USA government formally agreed.


Michael

 


Post 29

Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 7:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John A.,

Your set-up with me as a farmer living in the Arabian penninsula ignores and deviates from the facts considerably. (Substituting  the American oil companies for me would be trivial.)

This is likely my last response to you on this subject. I doubt you will persuade me, or vice-versa.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 2:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil Coates brings up the Northwest and Land Ordinances.

Northwest Ordinance per Wikipedia : "The primary effect of the ordinance was the creation of the Northwest Territory. ... The United States claimed the region after the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolutionary War, but was subject to overlapping and conflicting claims of the states of the Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia, as well as a lingering British presence that was not settled until the War of 1812."

In other words, the new United States government claimed jurisdiction over the territory after winning a war, having not established ownership in the Lockean manner by application of labor. It seems there is much in common here with the Saudi government claiming jurisdiction over the region where oil was later to be discovered.

Land Ordinance of 1785 per Wikipedia: "Therefore, the immediate goal of the ordinance was to raise money through the sale of land in the largely unmapped territory west of the original colonies acquired from Britain at the end of the Revolutionary War."

In other words, the U.S. government raised money by selling land in which it had not established ownership in the Lockean manner by application of labor. It seems there is much in common here with the Saudi government collecting money for the territory where oil was later to be discovered.

It seems that some posters hold that the only proper way to establish original ownership is in Lockean fashion. I agree that's ideal, but reality isn't always as neat as we wish, and we must deal with it as is as best we can. Even the U.S. government, as proper as it once was, did not meet that ideal. (Of course, I am not equating the Saudi government and the early U.S. government overall.) Even the Lockean ideal is fuzzy at the edges. Suppose a prospector works only a small part of a territory he lays claim to. 

Phil wrote:
The principle in regard to the Saudis (and other Middle Eastern countries by the way...lets not only talk about the Saudis) is that they were not at all acting as proper custodians of the rights of others who came and created or mined or uncovered or developed wealth but were in effect -nationalizing- the assets for their own governmental profit.
Regarding your parenthetical remark, I'm not near as familiar with the details in other countries, and the topic is complicated enough already.

How do you know the Saudi government provided no protection to the personnel of the American oil companies from the local Bedouins? Protection need not be armed and direct. It could have been by warning, negotiation, or a guide. Also, it is clear the Saudi government put rules with the concession for the personnel of the American oil companies to respect rights of the local Bedouins.

nationalize - to convert from private to governmental ownership and control.

At the time of the first concession the only private ownership, if any, was by the Bedouins. There was nothing to nationalize except the land and Bedouin property. The above indicates that the U.S. government did that to territories. I admit the Saudi government did some "nationalizing" later when the concession was modified, which I even acknowledged in my first post (#12).

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 5/20, 3:56pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 7:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK wrote:

Saying that a totalitarian government is not a legitimate government, then claiming property rights for breach of contract as if it were a good government based on individual rights is nothing more than trying to impose wishful thinking on the world. Bad governments will not stop existing because someone wishes them to or doesn't think they are "legitimate" (which, as used here, is nothing more than a magic word like a magic spell that is supposed to miraculously change the reality of foreign governments)


MSK this is an idiotic strawman and I'm not entirely surprised to hear it from you. It's bad enough you make half-baked arguments on your website and censor my posts when they don't agree with your opinions, but now you come here and can't even think straight to make a coherent argument as a rebuttal to mine. What's the matter? It's not enough for you to act like a damn Nazi and stifle any dissent on your website you have to come here and try to ridicule my posts and use strawmans? Is the advocacy that man's rights be respected regardless of the government they live under only "wishful thinking"? So now we can't make any statements that man's rights are not being respected around the world and that these nation's governments should be toppled now is considered "wishful thinking"? Why bother advocating and fighting for man's rights at all if we just say any such effort is just "wishful thinking"? What is the point to even having a website that you run dedicated to advocating Objectivism? Just to hear yourself talk? To serve some narcissistic desire to have people parrot your own idiotic thoughts and delete dissenting posts? I have come to the conclusion you are a fraud and a coward.

Aren't we Objectivists fighting an intellectual war against those that usurp or attempt to take away man's rights? What was WW2 to you, was that an effort in just "wishful thinking" or did the United States kick the snot out of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? I guess you would've been whining like a self-loathing liberal snot the whole time we were just engaging in "wishful thinking" by attempting to defeat these totalitarian governments and establish a legitimate form of government dedicated to establishing justice.

If oil companies decided to make a deal with a totalitarian government, they were not stupid. They knew what it was going in. If such a country is not legitimate, what the hell were the oil companies signing contracts for? They did so voluntarily. Were the oil companies somehow breaking the law? Which law?


Another half-baked argument. The source of man's rights are not laws you ninny. What kind of Objectivist are you? I can't even believe you are saying this and run an Objectivist website! Of course if a company wishes to take the risk and operate in a country that is hostile to man's rights, then they obviously do so at great risk to themselves, but to think that by rights that company has no right to lay claim to land that no one has claimed before them, to use for productive use, is like saying man living in Saudi Arabia doesn't have a right to free speech because that is not the law in Saudi Arabia. Man has rights regardless of whatever autocrat has decreed or has written on paper. We don't start picking and choosing man's rights based on where they pick and choose to do business or reside.

There is a Rand quote somewhere talking about this very point (Law of Identity and refusing to recognize the existence of totalitarian governments).


What are you blathering on about? What does any of this discussion have to do with the law of identity? "Legitimacy" means "justified" at least that is one of its definitions. When we talk about what is a legitimate form of government, or what is a legitimate power of government, we are talking about what governments ought to look like, we are saying what is an establishment of justice. When I say totalitarian governments are illegitimate (another words a government that operates through injustice) that is not a violation of the law identity. If anything it is strictly abiding by the law of identity. Totalitarian governments are illegitimate, i.e. unjustified. Liberal democracies are legitimate, i.e. justified. No violation of the law of identity there so I haven't a clue what you are blabbering about.

I have no problem with war when needed, although I hate it.


There's nothing to hate about war if it is to establish justice. Now we hear from you some liberal nonsense of war is a necessary evil, we should have a policy of non-interventionism and peaceful negotiations.....blah blah blah, like I don't hear enough of that garbage from liberals and their cowardly ilk.

I do have a big problem with going to war using property rights as justification for a case where voluntary business was transacted between a private company and a foreign government and jurisdiction was granted by the parties-to-contract to the foreign government. This breaches the Law of Identity at the root.


Now you're taking my argument that the Saud family has no legitimate claim to governance, and no legitimate claim to the oil fields in the Arabian peninsula, to now a strawman of my argument that the United States ought to always go to war with any totalitarian nation that American companies do business with or that we should go to war with Saudi Arabia because oil companies did business with an illegitimate government. I never said that and it is a separate issue. Whether we decide to go to war with another nation requires an analysis of a lot of issues.

There is only one case where this would be admissible: if there were a contractual clause signed by the foreign government granting jurisdiction over the agreement to the USA government and the USA government formally agreed.


Bullshit! The United States does not need permission or a contract from a cabal of thugs to have jurisdiction granted to the U.S. No totalitarian nation can make a legitimate claim to sovereignty. Did we have to have a contract with the Taliban before invading Afghanistan and toppling that government? Did we need permission from the Taliban to encroach on their sovereignty? I guess our government should ask "Oh please Mr. Omar, sign a contract with us so we can remove you from power!" Give me a break! Criminals obviously have no legitimate claim to establishing a jurisdiction, otherwise that itself is a violation of the law of identity. How can a group of thugs establish justice within specified territorial boundaries when said thugs and criminals by definition don't respect man's rights? How is that not a contradiction? Never is a totalitarian nation ever have any legitimate claim to a jurisdiction, never can they make any legitimate claim to sovereignty. Never can they make a legitimate claim to self-defense, never can they make a legitimate claim to property, never can they make any legitimate claim to the promulgation of their regime.

MSK seriously, I'm sick of your liberal garbage and pseudo-objectivist arguments. I have no desire to ever speak with a fraud and a coward such as yourself again.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 9:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Justified by Words but Established by Force


John A.,

I don't know the nature of your personal beef with MSK, but the point has to be made is that if someone choses to travel or do business in an uncivilized land, he shouldn't come running to others for help, hat in hand, if he ends up getting treated in an uncivilized manner.

Now, if treaties exist between two countries that afford each other's citizens rights and the guarantees of property in each nation, and then one nation arbitrarily abrogates those rights, there's a case for complaint and even war. But where no such treaties exist, it's caveat emptor.

A friend of mine, after seeing the recent Casino Royale, immediately started making plans to go see Montenegro. I strongly advised him against it, and suggested the much safer and more civilized EU and NATO affiliated Slovenia instead. He said he wanted to go to Montenegro, because it was so beautiful that they set the movie there. I told him he was thinking like a tourist, not a realist. They set the movie there because Montenegro is basically a no-man's land where might makes right.

If he did travel there, and got kidnapped, would I expect the U.S. Marines to charge in to rescue him? Would I quote theory on how man's rights should be guaranteed and expect my argument to thereby place a moral burden upon someone to come to his rescue?

My positing an argument, no matter how valid, places no moral obligation on anyone. I have rights now because I am lucky enough to live in a land where they are protected, I am smart enough to stay in lands where they are protected, and I am wise enough to do what's needed both within and outside the system, if necessary, to protect my rights and interests. I don't for a minute think that words alone will guarantee me anything. We have a tradition of rights and law that was justified by words but was established by force. I will justify my actions by words, but will act with force if necessary. And I am not about pretend that my mere words, however reasonable, carry the same moral imperative in a barbarous land that they would in a civilized land - or in a barbarous land with an army at my back.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/20, 9:53pm)


Post 33

Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 10:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted:

John A.....the point has to be made is that if someone choses to travel or do business in an uncivilized land, he shouldn't come running to others for help, hat in hand, if he ends up getting treated in an uncivilized manner.


Ted I never made such an argument. Don't buy into MSK's strawman I never said such a thing. However there is nothing immoral with toppling an uncivilized government but of course as you make the distinction there isn't necessarily a moral obligation to do so unless it is one's interest. But I think there's definitely a self-interest for the West to topple such an awful regime like the Saud family that has openly harbored terrorists, funds Islamic schools that preach violence towards westerners, and has control over oil fields that they simply have no legitimate claims to. Very large oil fields mind you that influence our economy.

Given that areas of the tropics today are still held by hunter-gatherers, should we as card-carrying capitalists lay claim to large tracts of Indonesia, the Amazon, the Congo and New Guinea? Never mind the head hunters!


I missed this comment, and would like to address it. Why the hell not Ted? We certainly as capitalists can lay claim to tracts of land in these areas, if head hunters get in the way us Capitalists have every right to protect our property and deal with them accordingly, as the European colonists did with American Indians here in America. I hope you're not getting all PC wobbly on me now. Uncivilized brutes can't lay claim to land, they don't even understand the concept of "property" and so how can they legitimately claim any land for themselves?



(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/20, 11:47pm)


Post 34

Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 10:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin wrote:

John A.,

Your set-up with me as a farmer living in the Arabian penninsula ignores and deviates from the facts considerably. (Substituting the American oil companies for me would be trivial.)


It's called conveying a concept Merlin. Whether it would be a farmer or an oil company, it makes no difference to the essentials of man's rights. Of course the facts are not the same otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy would it?



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Monday, May 21, 2007 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

I have only deleted your gratuitous insults on my site. If there were any intelligent ideas among them, I was hard put to find any. You cannot insult people there and that condition is in the posting guidelines, which you violated. (I am a bit flexible at times, but the limit is my prerogative.) Why you are whining about that here, I don't know. You may, as you are doing, insult me here.

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just returned from several days vacation in Alaska.

The discovery of oil in Alaska, along with the building of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, was also a case in which the "communal property rights" of natives were recognized. The land had not been deeded to individuals, but was used by native nomadic people for centuries. Native claims to almost all of Alaska were extinguished in exchange for approximately one-ninth of the state's land plus $962.5 million in compensation distributed to 200 local village and 12 native-owned regional corporations, plus a 13th corporation comprising Alaska Natives who had left the state. For more info, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.