flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Kreilick slapper) (03/03/85)
Dan McKiernan's reply to my ribbing demonstrates that libertarians are second only to feminists in the sense-of-humor category. OK, you want to be serious, let's be serious. >> ... 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. [And in another article] > not surrendering their land to Indians. Mr. McKiernan took my jibe as an accusation of hypocrisy. WRONG. It was an attempt to show how libertarians fail to examine the consequences of their principles, by way of an example. I think that libertarian principles, together with a conveniently ignored fact, imply that massive numbers of "rectifying" property transfers are in order. The conveniently ignored fact is that almost none of what any of us possess is untainted with coercion in its history. The disruption and confusion that would result, if we tried to trace the history of each possession to find its "rightful owner", constitutes a reductio ad absurdum (or at least "ad implausibilium") of libertarianism. Note that Mr. McKiernan seems to put the "burden of proof" on the Indian, above: the Indian must *demonstrate* his ownership. If all he could say was, "My father['s father ...] told me [my father, who told me ...] that he would have bequeathed the land to me", but couldn't prove this, would that do? The answer is important, because if the burden of proof is on the Indians, few of them can meet it so the "ad absurdity" can be avoided. However, if there is no such burden of proof, THEN THE INDIAN HAS THE BETTER CLAIM to the land, and much redistribution of land is necessary. And then there is compensation to made for depriving the Indian of the *use* of the land -- and so on, ad absurdum. One more point. Mr. McKiernan tries to reduce the problem by saying: > 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. But in the absence of a precise definition of "use", this begs questions. If buffalo need to roam far and wide and the Indians use the buffalo, perhaps they use more land than one first thinks. As Biep Dieroux (sp?) pointed out, what constitutes "use" is not obvious. --Reappointed, Paul Torek [followups to .theory please]
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (03/04/85)
You have all evidenced a large degree of calousness and ignorance on this subject, for you have shown sufficient lack of understanding of the culture of the american indian that you have missed the whole point as far as indian ownership of american land goes: the american indians believe that no person owns land. Thus none of them will claim personal ownership, nor is there any reason for a whole tribe to claim ownership, for their belief is that ALL land should be available for use by ALL people. Therefore the question is not, which indians own which land, but that the white man has the arrogance to think that he can claim ownership of ANY land. As far as the sense of humor of feminists goes, I suggest that the prime reason for an observed lack of feminists accepting having fun poked at them is a result of males failing to take seriously the issues addressed by feminists. It *is* standard procedure for males to sluff-off such issues by discrediting the value of any words coming out of the mouth of a female or feminist, as she is "only" a woman. > Dan McKiernan's reply to my ribbing demonstrates that libertarians > are second only to feminists in the sense-of-humor category. OK, > you want to be serious, let's be serious. > > >> ... 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. > [And in another article] > > > not surrendering their land to Indians. > > Mr. McKiernan took my jibe as an accusation of hypocrisy. WRONG. It > was an attempt to show how libertarians fail to examine the consequences > of their principles, by way of an example. I think that libertarian > principles, together with a conveniently ignored fact, imply that > massive numbers of "rectifying" property transfers are in order. The > conveniently ignored fact is that almost none of what any of us possess > is untainted with coercion in its history. The disruption and confusion > that would result, if we tried to trace the history of each possession > to find its "rightful owner", constitutes a reductio ad absurdum (or at > least "ad implausibilium") of libertarianism. > > Note that Mr. McKiernan seems to put the "burden of proof" on the Indian, > above: the Indian must *demonstrate* his ownership. If all he could say > was, "My father['s father ...] told me [my father, who told me ...] that > he would have bequeathed the land to me", but couldn't prove this, would > that do? The answer is important, because if the burden of proof is on > the Indians, few of them can meet it so the "ad absurdity" can be avoided. > However, if there is no such burden of proof, THEN THE INDIAN HAS THE > BETTER CLAIM to the land, and much redistribution of land is necessary. > And then there is compensation to made for depriving the Indian of the > *use* of the land -- and so on, ad absurdum. > > One more point. Mr. McKiernan tries to reduce the problem by saying: > > > 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. > > But in the absence of a precise definition of "use", this begs questions. > If buffalo need to roam far and wide and the Indians use the buffalo, > perhaps they use more land than one first thinks. As Biep Dieroux (sp?) > pointed out, what constitutes "use" is not obvious. > > --Reappointed, > Paul Torek [followups to .theory please] -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)