mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (02/23/85)
Lines marked '>>' are from an earlier article of mine; lines marked '>' are from Sevener's response. >> Should I ever possess a piece of land such that an Indian can >>reasonably demonstrate that (s)he is legitimate heir to a legitimate owner >>who had the property wrested from h(im|er), I will turn it over. >This misses the point. No, it was in response to the claim that Libertarians are hypocritical in not surrendering their land to Indians. > Of course no Indians will have any "deed" or "title" >to any land since they did not consider land something that could be owned. >To the Indians such a question would be equivalent to asking what gives >anybody the right to breathe air: [...] Sevener, I know that you mean well here, but this over-generalization is offensive. The American Indian did not belong to a monolithic culture, and some tribes did consider land something that could be owned (for example, the Zuni Indians). Whether or not one can establish title without recognizing the resource in question as ownable is a difficult philosophical question; it can be reasonably held that title is established by taking possession and putting into productive use even when the person does not recognize that (s)he now owns the resource. It should be recognized that not all the land of the Americas was used by Indians, and that this land was therefore legitimately up for grabs. This leaves us with the case of land actually stolen from Indians (in other words: land which was owned by Indians but which was forcibly taken from them). Let's say that one of my Indian ancestors owned a tract, and a European settler stole it from him [thru-out this discussion, please consider 'he' as neuter]. My ancestor has X potential immediate heirs; who gets what parts of the tract? It may be that he expresses his wishes such that we know, but there's likely to be some confusion -- especially since he may have written it off as a lost cause and abandoned his title. This problem is compounded with each generation, and long before you get to me the claim has been effectively abandoned, and the current occupier owes me nothing. > where's the title for [the right to [breathe the air and similar activities]? >Who owns the air? A good question. Right now, the only air that's owned is in storage tanks, but it's conceivable that most of the air will be domed-in some day (I'm not competent to speculate on the probability of such a situation). It should be noted that while the air is not owned, ownership of land includes (at least initially) some of the volume above the land, and pollution of that space is trespass; so it's almost as if the air were owned. > How do you claim to wrest *my* air from me? If I wanted to steal you air, I'd steal or drain your holding tank; but I have no intention of doing so. >PS - I would also like to ask the Libertarians on this net what they paid >for the priviledge to use the net. Did you pay your $$$$$ for the right to >express your opinions? Right now, access to the net is a gift from the relevant institutions. Unless it becomes a negotiated side-benefit, each institution has the right to deny access. > WHAT!! You think that some people should be able >to express their opinions without *paying* for it!! Do people have the right to consume gifts? Of course! > Heresy!! Heresy is opinion at variance from established doctrine. Acceptance of gifts is not at variance with Libertarianism, so I guess that this is another one of your straw-men! Back later, DKMcK