Property Rights - A Hypothetical Scenario

If John were so inclined, would he have the right to hunt there, too? If he and the Kikis deplete everything worth hunting, then both will have to find new ways to survive, right? No one’s rights have been broken, it’s just time for everyone to adapt.

Well we're drawing a lot of assumptions in this hypothetical. My point is simply that such a tribe, the Kikis, have established ownership of the hunting and gathering rights to the land they use. If someone were to move on to the island, then he should respect their established rights. Therefore he should not hunt on their land without their permission. The hypothetical society is a well established society and is presumably in balance. Nevertheless, if the Kikis grow to such a size that they cannot survive on game found on their established hunting land, then they'll have to find some other way to survive, but this has nothing to do with the rights they've already established.

Of course, the reality would probably be much different. Once discovered, some foreign people would come and hunt on their land. The Kikis would become angry and kill the poachers. This would start a war against the tribe. The tribe's land would be confiscated by the imposing army, and the Kikis would be put on a reservation in a small part of the island, and they would be forced to live by farming, and by a minimum of food and supplies given to them by their occupiers. The occupied land would eventually be settled by the imposing foreigners, and after 100 years, the Kikis would be given citizenship to the new government, and be allowed to return to the historic land of their ancestors, now built up as a thriving metropolis.

Craig

Post 21

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 2:40pm

Individual rights do not come from paper.

Speaking of "incredible" statements. You were the one talking about New Mexico and US law. Never did I refer to paper or written ownership (and what a ridiculously poor reading of what I wrote); on the contrary I've been the one talking about principle.

Listen to yourself. You talk about a "tribe" living there "for countless generations". This is pure collectivism. Not a mention of individuals or principles flowing from individual rights - on the contrary you derive their "right" from the fact that their ancestors did something in the general vicinity. You talk about Objectivism but you've barely understood a word of it.

I suggest you leave these political topics aside until you've achieved some semblance of an understanding of Objectivist epistemology.

Post 22

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 2:43pm

While no one has a divine right to continue in a stagnant mode of living, they may retain the right to the property that attended that mode. An example: Let’s say that an individual arrives in America from overseas. He possesses an astounding technology that allows him to extract 100 times the energy from coal than is extracted by our current method of simple burning. He laughs at Pennsylvania coalmine owners for their claim of mine ownership. “You haven’t been using this coal—just wasting it! You have no right to it, step aside, the mines are mine.”

Jon

Post 23

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 2:43pm

Listen to yourself. You talk about a "tribe" living there "for countless generations". This is pure collectivism. Not a mention of individuals or principles flowing from individual rights - on the contrary you derive their "right" from the fact that their ancestors did something in the general vicinity. You talk about Objectivism but you've barely understood a word of it.

Curious: Is it your opinion that people do not have a right to live in a tribe? Does such a decision abrogate their rights?

Craig

Post 24

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 2:54pm

Aren't there people who own open land and use it only for their own private hunting preserve? There's the precedent for the Kikis land use. If they remain peaceful, but don't want to sell or trade, I think you have to leave them alone.

The Indians could have made precisely the same argument to the Europeans about the American continent. "Oh, this is just our private hunting reserve. Now leave." Right. If you multi-culturalists would just think for 2 seconds before posting your regurgitation of high-school debate class...

You know, if you guys are honestly curious about these issues, you could opt to actually read about it. I'd suggest everything by Ayn Rand, and Capitalism by George Reisman, who I think deals with this issue in some detail. You've heard of Ayn Rand, yes?

Post 25

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 3:06pm

You know, if you guys are honestly curious about these issues, you could opt to actually read about it. I'd suggest everything by Ayn Rand, and Capitalism by George Reisman, who I think deals with this issue in some detail. You've heard of Ayn Rand, yes?

I've read every book that was published by Ayn Rand, except for The Romantic Manifesto, and The Fountainhead. In fact, I've been reading her books since 1987. I would like to talk about her ideas. There's nothing else I can learn by reading from her at this point. Moreover, many ideas I've seen of hers have been presented as facts, when they are not substantiated. So, if you have an argument, please make it. I simply think that you're wrong in this case. No offense intended.

Craig

Post 26

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 3:15pm

There's nothing else I can learn by reading from her at this point.

If you read her as sloppily as you do me, I think I know what the problem is.

So, if you have an argument, please make it.

No, I think I won't. I found your question about whether I think being part of a group takes away rights such a poor reading of what I wrote that I have no trust that you'd actually comprehend half of what I'd say.

Why don't you go read Reisman, he has plenty of arguments for you to half-comprehend. Might be fun.

Post 27

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 5:18pm

Most of us are following Ayn Rands lead here that "land ownership" is determined through usage.

But if I understand her correctly she meant "first-time" ownership of formerly uninhabited land.

Therefore, if I buy a piece of land from someone else and then and leave it abandoned for ten years - no one is allowed to use it for their own purposes and then claim it as their own.

I think she also meant that you would be the first to claim uninhabited land by actually living on it.
I would agree with that. Anything the kikis didn't live on does not naturally belong to them.

Another point is that it does not seem that the kikis have a Government that upholds property rights.
If that is the case, then they just have anarchy. In that case, John is not obligated to respect their property rights.
However, if he wants property rights he does then need to set up or defer to a legitimate Government that upholds his rights.

Otherwise, if he goes ahead regardless, he is also living under their tribal system of anarchy as well.

Post 28

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 5:43pm

This is the question pending: why do people lose their property rights because they live in a system of anarchy, and do not have a government to protect their rights? Why can't people, living in a communal tribe, claim property rights?

The answer is that they should be able to have their rights respected, even if they live in a tribal system. As long as a tribe is composed of voluntary inhabitants, then it can speak and act for everyone in the tribe. As a tribe, if they use the land to survive, then the land belongs to the tribe, as an entity in itself. In the same way, corporations can buy property and claim its ownership long after those original people in the corporation have died. In the same way, my household is maintained under a system of anarchy, and we do not lose our property rights simply because both my wife and I communally own the property.

To claim otherwise is to claim that tribes have no rights, and can be disassociated by outsiders with no vested interest in the tribe, simply by forcibly taking their land and property.

To those who believe this, can I ask why? Why do people lose their rights by joining a tribe?

Craig

(Edited by SnowDog on 2/05, 5:44pm)

Post 29

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 5:46pm

Marcus: “Another point is that it does not seem that the kikis have a Government that upholds property rights.
If that is the case, then they just have anarchy. In that case, John is not obligated to respect their property rights.”

This means that rights exist when a government says so. But rights precede government.

Post 30

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 6:01pm

Yes rights do "exist" without a Government.

But they are not "upheld" without a Government.

(Objectivists don't subscribe to the theory that anarchies can uphold rights.)

Post 31

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 6:03pm

Isn’t John obligated to respect rights, whether formally upheld, or not?

Post 32

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 6:08pm

Marcus,

Your statement seems to imply that as long as a government doesn’t formally protect an individual, no one is obligated to not walk all over his rights.

Jon

Post 33

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 6:26pm

"In that case, John is not obligated to respect their property rights."

By this statement, I meant that he is not "legally" obligated.

Of course, (as I write above) if he goes down that path then he is at the mercy of "anarchy".

What he should feel "morally" obligated to do is entirely another question that I haven't addressed here.

Post 34

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 6:26pm

Yes rights do "exist" without a Government.

But they are not "upheld" without a Government.

Right, but as Objectivists living the virtuous life, we respect the rights and independence of others. To do otherwise would be to sacrifice those virtues for which we strive. The only time that we would choose NOT to respect the rights of others would be if some of our values were at risk. We don't respect the rights of those living under the government of our enemies when those governments are at war with us. Hence, we rightfully fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo in WWII. Lacking a s state of war, we should respect the rights of others, even if they can't defend their rights, themselves.

Craig

(Edited by SnowDog on 2/05, 6:39pm)

Post 35

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 7:05pm

Marcus writes :"Yes rights do "exist" without a Government.

But they are not "upheld" without a Government."

I've been waiting for this to come up.

I would add: or at least without an army, or some form of forceful self defense.

So what it really comes down to, then, is that might does not make right, but does it matter if one is right without the might to back it up? (Sure, the violater of rights may eventually fall to his own parasitical nature, but that's cold comfort to the victims in the meantime...) And since we're being hypothetical, what if it was an individual living on the island, and not a group? And if said individual wanted to enjoy the island without intrusion, even if miles of lands went unused? And if said individual were able to enforce that by some means? (Maybe he is a genius inventor who is able to repel others with a Thompson harmonizer or a cloaking device.) Obviously he wouldn't need a government to protect his rights, he would only need adequate force or protection to defy the would be invaders. So isn't it really less a matter of who has the right than who has the might to defend the claim of ownership? (As it stands, the U.S. government claims eminent domain, it's not right, but it has the might.

My question: why is it necessary to have a government in order for an individual, or group of individuals, to protect his rights; can't a group of individuals simply ban together to protect their rights as needed, without a centralized government? I am thinking of Rand's comment that the only group an individual should join are "ad hoc" committees with a specific goal to achieve. I am thinking that the pro government answer would be that even an ad hoc committee would have some kind of heirachy, some kind of central planning...but does that constitute a government?

Thanks,
Joe

Post 36

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 11:05pm

Joe wrote: “what if it was an individual living on the island, and not a group? And if said individual wanted to enjoy the island without intrusion, even if miles of lands went unused? And if said individual were able to enforce that by some means? (Maybe he is a genius inventor who is able to repel others with a Thompson harmonizer or a cloaking device.)”

But, Joe, maybe John the intruder has a special vaporizer weapon and said island individual now no longer exists except as soot and gases?

We’re talking about morality, rights.

Jon

Post 37

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 11:49pm

To answer Pete’s questions directly:

John has the right to extract the resources he found (even though he made no heroic effort, but was off fucking about with his yacht and happened upon the island.) Kluck-tee continues to have a right to the amounts of oil he was collecting. Perhaps John should give him some, if his drilling reduces the amount that is bubbling up naturally.

No Kiki has the right to keep John from building a hut and hunting the land. He is no different from a baby Kiki—he was born on this earth and has the right to seek out something to cook and eat. Not on any Kiki’s RANCH, but certainly in the open woods, (consistent with sound game management regulations.)

John should contact the US State Department at once. As a Canadian, he should know that the last thing he wants is for his new home to become Canadian.

Jon

Post 38

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 11:52pm

Marcus Bachler writes:

Yes rights do "exist" without a Government.

Glad to see you acknowledge that, but why the scare quotes? What is the special meaning of 'exist' that you are using?

But they are not "upheld" without a Government.

I uphold my rights whenever I defend them. Again, why the scare quotes?

(Objectivists don't subscribe to the theory that anarchies can uphold rights.)

Shouldn't you have put your scare quotes around 'anarchies'? It looks to me that you are simply afraid of the boogey-man A-word.

Post 39

Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 2:47am