Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!ptsfa!well!l5!laura From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Freedom and property, round 2 Message-ID: <280@l5.uucp> Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 13:57:46 EST Article-I.D.: l5.280 Posted: Sun Nov 24 13:57:46 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 20:56:14 EST References: <1137@mtuxo.UUCP> Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 59 From Richard Carnes: Let me clarify what I am asking with an example. Migrating down from the Bering Straits, Running Dog comes across a tract of virgin land, previously unused by humans. He clears and tills 100 acres and grows corn. Running Dog has read some "libertarian" writings and now, to the consternation of the tribal council, declares that he and he alone possesses the moral rights of ownership to the 100 acres; that is, he claims to possess the *moral* right to use, profit from, sell, or give away the land, and no one else has the right to do so without his consent. The tribal elders don't buy it. Who is right and why? If there is insufficient information to answer the question, what further information is required? The case is important because all natural resources that people need to survive were at one time or still are in the same position as the 100 acres. There is a problem with this example. 100 acres is an awful lot of land. Assuming that Running Dog ended up on the prarie (where tilling the land is not the problem it could be) having the seed grain for 100 acres of corn is problematical. Did he buy it? With *whose* property? It is also necessary to know exactly what is the claim of the tribal elders. Nobody has owned land before, so nobody can own land now? The reply to that is that nobody has made such wealth as corn fields before. Nobody has used the land this way before, and made it so valuable. We don't want to participate in the agrarian revolution, and keep our old ways of hunting and gathering? Fine, but Running Dog, not being a slave, should be free to persue the farming way of life. We supported and fed you while you were doing no hunting, just planting and keeping the animals from eating your corn. Now you owe us a share. (Hmm. The venture capitalists are getting uppity :-) ) If this is the case, then I think that the elders have a claim to some of the corn. The question is -- whose idea was it to grow corn? If the council decided to and assigned this task to Running Dog then the council has a very strong claim (but next year RD can plant his own corn field). If Running Dog approached the elders and got approval for his plan then the case of the elders is still strong, but since Running Dog can claim the idea that transformed the land into corn fields, his claim is also strong. If Running Dog did his farming as a spare time project then his claim is very strong and the elders is weaker -- it was only after he became successful that the elders want a piece of the action. Or are the elders claiming that all members of the tribe are slaves of the tribe as a whole and that Running Dog should be worked to the bone and exploited for the sake of the good of the tribe? If this is the case, then Running Dog is probably going to lose his land -- slave holders are not known for respecting the rights of their slaves. When he gets a chance, it is time to escape from the tribe first and build a farm second. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa