Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Freedom and property, round 2
Message-ID: <1740@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Dec-85 12:38:21 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1740
Posted: Tue Dec  3 12:38:21 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 16:16:41 EST
References: <1137@mtuxo.UUCP> <280@l5.uucp> <1739@dciem.UUCP> <169@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 47
Summary: 


>In article <1739@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:
>>Even under the libertarian principles of allowing conversion of land
>>to private ownership, there is a prior condition that the land is not
>>being used.  Did Running Dog enquire of the bears, birds, deer, and
>>other people whether they might have been using the land before he
>>started up his plow?  If you answer that the wildlife are not people, and
>>therefore need not be consulted, how far are you from denying that
>>Amerindians are people, in order to justify Homesteading?
>
>Even without the propertarian principles allowing conversion of land to
>private ownership, the question of asking the flora&fauna (you didn't
>mention any fauna, Martin!) about re-arranging the ecology of the land is
>immaterial. The reasoning behind this is that Humanity, as a race, has the
>same rights to modify the ecology as any other race.
>
>For a concrete example, if humanity decided - by democratic vote - to dam a
>river to make a reservoir, we'd have as much right to make that attempt as a
>collection of beavers.

Oh, so you DO accept the principle that "might makes right," do you?
Ever hear of "noblesse oblige?"

Sure, we have as much right to re-arrange the ecology as does any other
species, but there has been lots of talk about conepts such as "rationality"
as opposed to force (I don't buy those arguments, but they seem to
apply in this case).  The beavers build dams in some kind of equilibrium
with the rest of the ecology: their dams are small compared to ours,
and they do it because that's what beavers do.  Perhaps we also build
dams because that's what humans do (i.e. grow numerous and destroy).
We have more control (so we think), and more power.  With power SHOULD
come responsibility to use that power fairly.  We steal the land from
the indigenous population, claiming it to be unused (you didn't answer
the question about Amerinds and Homesteading, although the rationale
is the same as in the Running Dog example -- the land was unused because
no humans were using it) and then we make it unusable for the original
population by changing its characteristics.  We also make it unusable
by fellow "humans", by claiming it as property.

By what morality does might make right?  It is antithetic to everything
I read from Liber- Propertarians, yet seems to lie at the foundation of
their philosophy.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt