Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Reparations, Indians, Property
Message-ID: <863@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 15:06:14 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.863
Posted: Fri Mar 29 15:06:14 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 02:27:21 EST
Reply-To: pvt1047@wucec1.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 120

Even no. of >'s = Torek; odd no. = McKiernan.

>>was an attempt to show how libertarians fail to examine the consequences
>>of their principles, by way of an example.

>Okay, I was wrong, and I apologize; you were doing something even dumber:
>Assuming what Libertarians did and did not think about without conducting a
>reasonable investigation.

I had reasonable grounds for my statement (see below).  However, it *was*
unfair of me to say that "libertarians fail to examine the consequences
of their principles" -- many of those consequences have been examined
quite thoroughly.  But others areas haven't been.  Or at least, not in
sufficient rigor.  What I should have said was "there are some important
consequences of libertarian principles which (most) libertarians have
failed to note."

>  The question of reparations is OFTEN discussed amongst Libertarians,
> and with informed outsiders.  For example, I have [...]

I think you are the "exception that proves the rule."  I am, of course,
open to evidence to the contrary.  Evidence for my statement, however,
can be found in Nozick's book (ASU, p. 152): "I know of no theoretically
sophisticated treatment of these issues [about reparations]" (not an
exact quote).  Nozick adds in a footnote: "But see the helpful discussion
... in *The Case for Black Reparations*" (again, not an exact quote --
I can look up the exact quotes if you like).  So Nozick -- one of the
most well-known and intelligent libertarians -- apparently thinks that
the issues have not been sufficiently addressed.

> For example, American Indians have been invited (and come) to Libertarian
> Party conventions to speak.  For example, there was an emotional battle
> some years ago in the SLS when members from the LPRC advocated seizing
> lands which had been plantations, and redistributing them amongst
> American Negroes.

Well, I stand to some extent corrected.  However, I challenge you to come
up with a discussion of this issue by the libertarians on the net 
(besides yourself, but you were *responding* to *my* *initiation* of the
issue, which is a very different story!).  In my several years on the net
I've seen no such thing.  And such explanation has often been called for,
because (I'll bet) most non-libertarian netters would be surprised to
learn that libertarians support many "left"-sounding causes (like restoring
land to Amer. Indians, to blacks, etc.).

>that Torek accuses us of ignoring an issue in the same posting in which he
>attacks my addressing of the issue, implies that he views his readers as
>too irrational or stupid to notice the contradiction.

Two can play this game: "that McKiernan accuses me of contradiction, in
spite of the obvious fact that he was in effect *challenged* to address
this issue BEFORE he said anything about it, and the other obvious fact
that there is no contradiction between saying a group has failed to
address an issue and admitting that they will address it if it is brought
to their attention -- shows that he thinks his readers are stupid."
Gee, aren't ad hominem attacks fun??

>> 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 ... implausibilium of libertarianism.

> No, it's a reductio ad implausibilium of a straw man.

Hardly:  take a look at Nozick, p. 153, on what a correct libertarian
principle of rectification would look like.  Nozick's principle has
precisely this implausible consequence.  Last time I looked, Nozick
was made of flesh and blood (of course, you are entitled to say that
Nozick is an atypically poor thinker for a libertarian -- ?,!).  I
urge all my readers to take a look at this passage in Nozick, and
judge for themselves whether his principles have absurd consequences.

> The idea that the burden of proof is on the accuser, rather than on the
> occupier, is in complete accord with Libertarian principle -- and, in fact,
> with Anglo-American tradition.  

"Complete accord"?  Predictable, yes; consistent -- depends what you mean.
You fail to distinguish -- or forget to mention the distinction -- between
what the *legal* system ought to say, and what the *moral* actions of the
parties involved ought to be.  SURE -- the legal system ought (by lib. 
std's) -- in an archist libertaria, anyway -- to put the burden of proof
on the accuser.  BUT -- the holder of the property perhaps ought only to
require reasonable evidence before giving up the goods.  To return to the
Indian who says "my father told me he would have given the land to me",
but can't prove this -- perhaps one should take his word for it.  And
now consider it from the Indian's point of view -- suppose he *knows*
his father would have given it -- it would seem that, by lib. std's, he
has a right to take it.

>>> 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.

> No, it doesn't 'beg the question'

Yes it does: it begs the Q of whether the land was legitimately up for
grabs.  If, as I have suggested, there are many subtle ways of using land
(such as the buffalo needing to roam), then little or none was for grabs.

> ; it begins to establish the limits of the problem. ...

Ok, that point granted -- when we get around to it, I do hope to see
more discussion of what constitutes "use" and why that confers property
rights.  I am convinced that Walter Wego's (here at Wash. U.) position
on this is the consistent one for libertarians, and his position differs
considerably from most ... he should be posting his article on this soon.

> The subject of internally consistent but mutually exclusive systems of 
> property fascinates me; I have had many intellectually challenging 
> discussions with friends on the matter.  In fact, this point is integral
> to my argument against anarcho-Libertarianism.

Well stay tuned for more (what I hope will be) challenging discussions...

>                                        Back in the saddle again, > DKMcK

Is this where they got the expression, "Blazing Saddles"?  :->

				--The uninspiring iconoclast,
				Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047