NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the primary principals for many variations of the capitalist libertarian/objectivst/an-caps is the the non-agressioin principal.

Breifly stated, the initiation of force against others is immoral.

Given the historical background in force of most large accumulations of wealth (slavery, colonialism, wars of conquest, feudalism, etc.), what moral defense can be given?

Great-great-grandpa used force to amass a collection of wealth I inherited. How is it moral for me to use said wealth?

One of the primary principals for many variations of the capitalist libertarian/objectivst/an-caps is the the non-agressioin principal.

Breifly stated, the initiation of force against others is immoral.

Given the historical background in force of most large accumulations of wealth (slavery, colonialism, wars of conquest, feudalism, etc.), what moral defense can be given?

Great-great-grandpa used force to amass a collection of wealth I inherited. How is it moral for me to use said wealth?

It is moral because you did not take any immoral actions.

You are not your grandfather. You are not your father. Nor your mother, your sister, the pastor of your church, the man down the street.

You are not responsible for the actions of others, in the past, future or present. You are 100% responsible for your own actions in all cases.

The past cannot be changed, ameliorated or, save for your own actions, apologised for - not only have you no POWER to apologize for the actions of your ancestors, you have no RIGHT to do so without their expressed permission. Chances are, they wouldn't make such an apology, and you have no right to impose your values on them. Arrogation of such rights is the height of both arrogance and hypocrisy.

Learn from the past. Understand where you come from. But acknowledge that it is the past, unchangeable, and beyond any capacity for you to moralize about.

It's not moral, but neither is being forced to give it away, so morality itself is screwed.

It is moral because you did not take any immoral actions.

You are not your grandfather. You are not your father. Nor your mother, your sister, the pastor of your church, the man down the street.

You are not responsible for the actions of others, in the past, future or present. You are 100% responsible for your own actions in all cases.

The past cannot be changed, ameliorated or, save for your own actions, apologised for - not only have you no POWER to apologize for the actions of your ancestors, you have no RIGHT to do so without their expressed permission. Chances are, they wouldn't make such an apology, and you have no right to impose your values on them. Arrogation of such rights is the height of both arrogance and hypocrisy.

Learn from the past. Understand where you come from. But acknowledge that it is the past, unchangeable, and beyond any capacity for you to moralize about.

So, it's OK for one to benifit from the breach of the principal if only one doesn't breach it oneself? How about recieving property that one fully knows was just now appropriated by force?

The past cannot be changed, ameliorated or, save for your own actions, apologised for - not only have you no POWER to apologize for the actions of your ancestors, you have no RIGHT to do so without their expressed permission. Chances are, they wouldn't make such an apology, and you have no right to impose your values on them. Arrogation of such rights is the height of both arrogance and hypocrisy.

I think you underestimate the power of an apology. I'm thinking of the slave trade for example. Also the pardoning of deserters who were shot in WWI because they were shell shocked. Are they not worth doing? Their families think so.

It's the height of arrogance not to apologize just because "they didn't think it was wrong" as it implies their opinions are somehow sacrosanct just because they held them. Apologies should be about humility, and admitting that a wrong has been done.

Learn from the past. Understand where you come from. But acknowledge that it is the past, unchangeable, and beyond any capacity for you to moralize about.

If you steal something, then give it to someone else, suddenly it isn't stolen? And it's fine for the person who got it to keep it?

Doesn't sound right to me.

If you steal something, then give it to someone else, suddenly it isn't stolen? And it's fine for the person who got it to keep it?

Doesn't sound right to me.


Nope, me either. I agree with your prior opinion about apologies, too.

This situation is quite a bit different than the OP's situation. I don't think it can be morally right for him to accept this money, given his beliefs. I think he should give me the money, as I have far fewer qualms about it. :tongue:

Seriously, Daistallia, I find no problem with keeping it/using it for a good cause, the situation of stolen property does not apply quite so exactly. Example: US (or any other of several countries, I suppose) explorers find a secret Nazi treasure! (score, right?) This treasure contains a note saying it was confiscated through some amoral way (I'm not inventive, and the details need not really matter) now the US soldiers decide to do something good with the money, charity, opening a local business, investing in a monument to the deadies, or something positive of that nature. Is this wrong? I don't think so, it's not like your grandfather robbed a bank, and handed you the bag o' cash as you and him drive away, or even like he gave you stolen-bank-cash in the first place, and if you can use the money responsibly, it should not be amoral.

Seriously, Daistallia, I find no problem with keeping it/using it for a good cause, the situation of stolen property does not apply quite so exactly. Example: US (or any other of several countries, I suppose) explorers find a secret Nazi treasure! (score, right?) This treasure contains a note saying it was confiscated through some amoral way (I'm not inventive, and the details need not really matter) now the US soldiers decide to do something good with the money, charity, opening a local business, investing in a monument to the deadies, or something positive of that nature. Is this wrong? I don't think so, it's not like your grandfather robbed a bank, and handed you the bag o' cash as you and him drive away, or even like he gave you stolen-bank-cash in the first place, and if you can use the money responsibly, it should not be amoral.

Actually the second situation re one's grandfather having stolen somethig is exactly what I'm talking about. Many modern fortunes are based on functionally the same set up...

I'm not talking about accidentally stumbling on ill gotten gains, but inheriting what's built on stolen property.

Example: My great grandfather owned yours as a slave, profited and now I have a fortune and you have nothing. I've functionally profited from the application of force against you. Is that moral?

Actually the second situation re one's grandfather having stolen somethig is exactly what I'm talking about. Many modern fortunes are based on functionally the same set up...

I'm not talking about accidentally stumbling on ill gotten gains, but inheriting what's built on stolen property.

Example: My great grandfather owned yours as a slave, profited and now I have a fortune and you have nothing. I've functionally profited from the application of force against you. Is that moral?

Legal and moral morass. New Zealand and Israel's politics are wrapped around land rights and who stole what and who should give it back to who....

I suppose the ideal situation is where you can use "ill-gotten gains" to somehow make reparations. But without knowing specifics it's difficult to say how easy or meaningful that would be. It also depends upon whether the 'wronged party' is actively seeking recompense or making a claim.

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;14486766]It is moral because you did not take any immoral actions.[QUOTE]

That would seem to legitimize theft as long as the theft happened a generation or two earlier.

One of the primary principals for many variations of the capitalist libertarian/objectivst/an-caps is the the non-agressioin principal.

Breifly stated, the initiation of force against others is immoral.

Given the historical background in force of most large accumulations of wealth (slavery, colonialism, wars of conquest, feudalism, etc.), what moral defense can be given?

Great-great-grandpa used force to amass a collection of wealth I inherited. How is it moral for me to use said wealth?
bascially, it's what you can live with. I don't hold you responsible for your great-great-grandpa's actions. but if YOU find it uncomfortable, then you can use that wealth to relieve any 'moral guilt' you may be feeling. how you use that wealth is up to you.

of course, if it was 'moral' for your great-great-grandfather to, let's say, own slaves back then, then is it immoral because of the time that took place?

I'm not sure if people are getting what Daistallia is asking. From a natural rights libertarian perspective only property that was legitimately acquired can count as property. This comes from homesteading or trade, but historically force has been used to aquire large amounts of property and with the relatively large public sectors and transfer payment schemes most to all of ones property can be seen to have been gained through theft at some point in the past. By this I mean since the circular flow of the economy the incomes of everyone can probably be traced back to the expenditures of public sector employees, privet sector workers with government contracts, welfare recipients, or elderly pensioners sometime in the past. How can libertarians reconcile their beliefs with this reality?

One of the primary principals for many variations of the capitalist libertarian/objectivst/an-caps is the the non-agressioin principal.

Breifly stated, the initiation of force against others is immoral.

Given the historical background in force of most large accumulations of wealth (slavery, colonialism, wars of conquest, feudalism, etc.), what moral defense can be given?

Great-great-grandpa used force to amass a collection of wealth I inherited. How is it moral for me to use said wealth?

I think the argument of libertarians goes along the lines that eventually the cost of the use of force exceeds the benefits of using force.

I'm not sure if people are getting what Daistallia is asking. From a natural rights libertarian perspective only property that was legitimately acquired can count as property.
Indeed, and even a libert as intelligent as Robert Nozick can't come up with a decent argument for the establishment of private property, instead he comes up with a wussy, 'well, we've got the property now, we might as well keep hold of it'.

I think the argument of libertarians goes along the lines that eventually the cost of the use of force exceeds the benefits of using force.

I thought force was wrong whether or not the benefits exceed the costs.

Actually the second situation re one's grandfather having stolen somethig is exactly what I'm talking about. Many modern fortunes are based on functionally the same set up...

I'm not talking about accidentally stumbling on ill gotten gains, but inheriting what's built on stolen property.

Example: My great grandfather owned yours as a slave, profited and now I have a fortune and you have nothing. I've functionally profited from the application of force against you. Is that moral?

It isn't moral or immoral. It is chance.

Why should someone feel guilty for being born into a well off family? There is no reason to.

Why should someone feel guilty for being born into a well off family? There is no reason to.
I agree that simply being born into a well-off family isn't anything bad, but if said family's wealth was gained through exploitation or similar, then one's subsequent actions with the wealth are morally evaluatable.

We discussed much of this in the 'Can you be a moral person in the First World?' thread.

I thought force was wrong whether or not the benefits exceed the costs.

I avoid morality.
but since the end result of force is a loss force should be avoided.

One of the primary principals for many variations of the capitalist libertarian/objectivst/an-caps is the the non-agressioin principal.

Breifly stated, the initiation of force against others is immoral.

Given the historical background in force of most large accumulations of wealth (slavery, colonialism, wars of conquest, feudalism, etc.), what moral defense can be given?

Great-great-grandpa used force to amass a collection of wealth I inherited. How is it moral for me to use said wealth?

You obviously don't have enough to do with your life, if you're obsessing about what your grandparents did or didn't do, or to whom. One of the benefits to society from NOT cultivating "Generational Guilt" complexes, is that we don't have an epidemic of multigenerational feuds. You can't stuff the mushroom cloud back into the steel casing, and you can't un-do what's been done. The only thing you have a moral duty to, is that which you can do, in this, your life, not to hurt someone else who didn't hurt you first-in this, your life. Not grampa's life, or great-grampa, or back in old Ireland under Cromwell.

When you validate ancient grievances, you validate present feuds.

When you validate ancient grievances, you validate present feuds.
There's a big difference, I would contend, between "validating ancient grievances", and recognising that one's privaleged position might be the result of ill-gotten gains.

There's a big difference, I would contend, between "validating ancient grievances", and recognising that one's privaleged position might be the result of ill-gotten gains.

Not really. You're assuming a passive response to your "admission of guilt"-which may be true in some, rare cases. If you truly acknowledge your guilt, you would best be served to liquidate your assets and holdings (and inheritances), and pay off your guilt. YOUR guilt. Then, you'll have the chance to be busy enough NOT to wave your ancestors' bad deeds about in self indulgent self flagellation.

Because it IS self-indulgent to consider yourself more-moral for feeling guilty, and nag others who don't to feel guilty, over what your ancestors may or may not have done wrong.

When you validate ancient guilts, you also open yourself up to demands for repayment, many times those demands will exceed your ability to pay if you actually chose to do so. It isnt' far to go, moving from "Gee I feel guilty" to "Why are you shooting at me??" Scottish feuds moved right into the American southeast un-altered (Hatfield v. McCoy being one of the most prominent examples), and folks used to shoot at one another over livestock getting loose (The Pig War in the pacific northwest).

It goes something like this: Say we're both descended from farmers, and your grandaddy's prize hog got fat on my granddaddy's garden. (Ill gotten gain-a prize hog fattened on someone else's table veggies) Now, let's say that the result of that was a line of prize hogs, your granddaddy profited, which your father profited, and then you profited. Am I right, three generations down, demanding that you pay me a cut of the profits from that?

ALL the profits?

Well, what about the people your great-grandaddy displaced from the land your farm sat on, do you owe them?

Or, how about the people your ancestors conquered in 1066? Should the descendents of all the Normans (and supporters) be paying the descendents of the Saxons? the Scots? the Welsh?

Should the descendents of the French feel deep shame and guilt over hte Albigensian Crusades? Maybe we should levy a guilt-trip on Italians for the Roman Conquests while we're at it.

Some will always benefit, some will always suffer, if you're moral, you can try to prevent as much suffering in the present and future as you are able, and learn from the misdeeds of the past, but don't obsess on them.

Not really. You're assuming a passive response to your "admission of guilt"-which may be true in some, rare cases. If you truly acknowledge your guilt, you would best be served to liquidate your assets and holdings (and inheritances), and pay off your guilt. YOUR guilt. Then, you'll have the chance to be busy enough NOT to wave your ancestors' bad deeds about in self indulgent self flagellation.

Because it IS self-indulgent to consider yourself more-moral for feeling guilty, and nag others who don't to feel guilty, over what your ancestors may or may not have done wrong.

When you validate ancient guilts, you also open yourself up to demands for repayment, many times those demands will exceed your ability to pay if you actually chose to do so. It isnt' far to go, moving from "Gee I feel guilty" to "Why are you shooting at me??" Scottish feuds moved right into the American southeast un-altered (Hatfield v. McCoy being one of the most prominent examples), and folks used to shoot at one another over livestock getting loose (The Pig War in the pacific northwest).

It goes something like this: Say we're both descended from farmers, and your grandaddy's prize hog got fat on my granddaddy's garden. (Ill gotten gain-a prize hog fattened on someone else's table veggies) Now, let's say that the result of that was a line of prize hogs, your granddaddy profited, which your father profited, and then you profited. Am I right, three generations down, demanding that you pay me a cut of the profits from that?

ALL the profits?

Well, what about the people your great-grandaddy displaced from the land your farm sat on, do you owe them?

Or, how about the people your ancestors conquered in 1066? Should the descendents of all the Normans (and supporters) be paying the descendents of the Saxons? the Scots? the Welsh?

Should the descendents of the French feel deep shame and guilt over hte Albigensian Crusades? Maybe we should levy a guilt-trip on Italians for the Roman Conquests while we're at it.

Some will always benefit, some will always suffer, if you're moral, you can try to prevent as much suffering in the present and future as you are able, and learn from the misdeeds of the past, but don't obsess on them.

How about a more modern one. say Zimbabwe. white Farmers more or less descended from those who stole the land controlled most of it.
Is it just then for the government to remove those white farmers from the land ?

This has nothing to do with guilt. It has to do with what is and is not legitimately one's property. Can one rightfully own property that was gained through force, theft, or fraud? If not then why does it matter how long ago the theft/force/fraud occurred? If so then there is a contradiction between that and natural rights libertarianism.

How about a more modern one. say Zimbabwe. white Farmers more or less descended from those who stole the land controlled most of it.
Is it just then for the government to remove those white farmers from the land ?

Well...consider what a great thing it has been for the black majority in Zimbabwe, and you have your answer. They're so prosperous and healthy now, aren't they? The lives of the people of Zimbabwe are so much better since then, aren't they? Doing real well, I hear. So many millionaires... OH, wait, that's right...their currency is devalued, a nation that used to SELL food to other countries has to import it now, sanitation? what sanitation?? Cholera, epidemic inflation, disease and starvation. I hear they've recently printed a 20,000,000 zimbabwe dollar note, and things are only getting worse.

So Very just an outcome.

Well...consider what a great thing it has been for the black majority in Zimbabwe, and you have your answer. They're so prosperous and healthy now, aren't they? The lives of the people of Zimbabwe are so much better since then, aren't they? Doing real well, I hear. So many millionaires... OH, wait, that's right...their currency is devalued, a nation that used to SELL food to other countries has to import it now, sanitation? what sanitation?? Cholera, epidemic inflation, disease and starvation. I hear they've recently printed a 20,000,000 zimbabwe dollar note, and things are only getting worse.

So Very just an outcome.

Umm.. which policies are you criticising in the context of this thread? The theft of land by whites or the land reform by Zimbabwe government? What does that have to do with any of the above?

Umm.. which policies are you criticising in the context of this thread? The theft of land by whites or the land reform by Zimbabwe government? What does that have to do with any of the above?

"Stolen" vs. "Conquered" is the first point, the second being that the "land reform" wound up generating more misery and death than the initial conquest. (rule of natural consequences applies-what sounds good and generous in theory often fucks you AND the recipient over in practice).
Just a further aside here, the "land reform" in Zimbabwe put urban, unskilled people in control of land that's not productive if it isn't managed competently. It's not a matter of running the whites out, either-the blacks that had the skills were excluded by Mugabe's regime (that is, the guys who'd been doing a lot of the work ON those farms) in favour of his supporters. Before you act on a generous urge to feel guilt and make reparations for what your ancestors did, you better stop and think about how that's going to impact the people you intend to benefit-if they don't have the skills to make it work, you're fucking them harder than your ancestors even dreamed.

Not really. You're assuming a passive response to your "admission of guilt"-which may be true in some, rare cases. If you truly acknowledge your guilt, you would best be served to liquidate your assets and holdings (and inheritances), and pay off your guilt. YOUR guilt.
Again, I think you're conflating two different concepts.

By acknowledging that my privaleged position is through past exploitation of others, I'm not acknowledging any guilt on my part for my ancestors' acts, simply acknowledging their guilt. Thereafter, there may well be moral ramifications to my actions if I choose to ignore this exploitation, if said exploitation could be rectified meaningfully, and if I continue, in some part, the exploitation.

Well...consider what a great thing it has been for the black majority in Zimbabwe, and you have your answer. They're so prosperous and healthy now, aren't they? The lives of the people of Zimbabwe are so much better since then, aren't they? Doing real well, I hear. So many millionaires... OH, wait, that's right...their currency is devalued, a nation that used to SELL food to other countries has to import it now, sanitation? what sanitation?? Cholera, epidemic inflation, disease and starvation. I hear they've recently printed a 20,000,000 zimbabwe dollar note, and things are only getting worse.

So Very just an outcome.

one could also argue the first 10 years of land reform (in which the UK funded it) it worked well. When they had funding from the UK Zimbabwe was able to sell the land to the farm workers. Once the UK ceased to find land reform the farmers started refusing to leave and this lead to the land going to the soldiers who removed them, rather then farmers.

"Stolen" vs. "Conquered" is the first point,

Force is force from a natural rights libertarian point of view

the second being that the "land reform" wound up generating more misery and death than the initial conquest. (rule of natural consequences applies-what sounds good and generous in theory often fucks you AND the recipient over in practice).

Which is irrelevant from a natural rights libertarian point of view

Before you act on a generous urge to feel guilt and make reparations for what your ancestors did, you better stop and think about how that's going to impact the people you intend to benefit-if they don't have the skills to make it work, you're fucking them harder than your ancestors even dreamed.

Again irrelevant from a natural rights libertarian point of view. Consequences don't matter per se. Legitimate property rights do even if they are less productive then then if force is applied.

Again, I think you're conflating two different concepts.

By acknowledging that my privaleged position is through past exploitation of others, I'm not acknowledging any guilt on my part for my ancestors' acts, simply acknowledging their guilt. Thereafter, there may well be moral ramifications to my actions if I choose to ignore this exploitation, if said exploitation could be rectified meaningfully, and if I continue, in some part, the exploitation.

I misunderstood your position, my apologies. There ARE moral ramifications for continuing the actions of your ancestors, but there are also moral and ethical ramifications from any attempt to "Make good on them"-Zimbabwe is a good example, the mess in Israel's another example. Half-assed 'solutions' generate more problems than the problem or injustice they were meant to rectify.

Force is force from a natural rights libertarian point of view



Which is irrelevant from a natural rights libertarian point of view



Again irrelevant from a natural rights libertarian point of view. Consequences don't matter per se. Legitimate property rights do even if they are less productive then then if force is applied.

Pure Natural Rights Libertarianism, like Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism (or Anarchism)...doesn't work without a pre-existing power-balance enforced by...

Force. How do I stop you from taking what's mine by force? with force, naturally. Whether it's force by means of personal arms, friends with arms, or sympathetic neighbours with arms, it's still force. Force has everything to do with it.

Humans are Apex predators, we're built to be Apex predators-non-predatory animals don't have the weaknesses we have, or they go extinct. What separates humans from animals, is the concept of laws beyond the law of the jungle.

Force. How do I stop you from taking what's mine by force? with force, naturally. Whether it's force by means of personal arms, friends with arms, or sympathetic neighbours with arms, it's still force. Force has everything to do with it.

Sorry, I thought you understood what I meant by force as in initiation of force, as in illegitimate seizure of property, as in coercion. There is no difference between stealing and conquering in a natural rights libertarian paradigm. They are both forms of theft and equally illegitimate.

Humans are Apex predators, we're built to be Apex predators-non-predatory animals don't have the weaknesses we have, or they go extinct. What separates humans from animals, is the concept of laws beyond the law of the jungle.

Your point?

Sorry, I thought you understood what I meant by force as in initiation of force, as in illegitimate seizure of property, as in coercion. There is no difference between stealing and conquering in a natural rights libertarian paradigm. They are both forms of theft and equally illegitimate.



Your point?

Where do you draw the line of legitimacy?

I misunderstood your position, my apologies.
Not at all.

Half-assed 'solutions' generate more problems than the problem or injustice they were meant to rectify.
Then we'd better make sure our solutions are full-assed... if you get my meaning.

Force. How do I stop you from taking what's mine by force? with force, naturally. Whether it's force by means of personal arms, friends with arms, or sympathetic neighbours with arms, it's still force. Force has everything to do with it.
Which is the rationale behind the libertarian advocation of the nightwatchmen state; the sole authority that has forceful power over individuals to uphold contracts and protect life, liberty and property.

Where do you draw the line of legitimacy?

A natural rights libertarian would say homesteading unowned land or materials or mixing one's labor with unowned land or materials. Add trading one's labor and/or legitimately owned property for others labor and legitimately owned property.

A natural rights libertarian would say homesteading unowned land or materials or mixing one's labor with unowned land or materials. Add trading one's labor and/or legitimately owned property for others labor and legitimately owned property.

Okay, now determine "Un-Owned" land.

A natural rights libertarian would say homesteading unowned land or materials or mixing one's labor with unowned land or materials. Add trading one's labor and/or legitimately owned property for others labor and legitimately owned property.
Problem is, as I see it, twofold.

Firstly, the precise definition of "mixing one's labour"; something that's been haunting us since Locke. Secondly, even if we accept the case for establishing rights of propoerty through mixing land and one's labour, it's difficult to construct a decent argument for how you can legitimately impose duties onto me for respecting your property rights.

So, it's OK for one to benifit from the breach of the principal if only one doesn't breach it oneself? How about recieving property that one fully knows was just now appropriated by force?

That's a crime in itself - receiving stolen goods - which can be morally defended by the fact of it's encouragement for harm of others.

On the other hand, purchasing of goods you did NOT know were stolen is protected - it is an act "in good faith". In that case, the immoral action was carried out by another - and the responsibility remains solely his.

I think you underestimate the power of an apology. I'm thinking of the slave trade for example. Also the pardoning of deserters who were shot in WWI because they were shell shocked. Are they not worth doing? Their families think so.

It's the height of arrogance not to apologize just because "they didn't think it was wrong" as it implies their opinions are somehow sacrosanct just because they held them. Apologies should be about humility, and admitting that a wrong has been done.

That's precisely my point.

I cannot admit for my great-great-grandfather, who WAS involved in the slave trade, btw, that he did something wrong. Only he could do that. Was he wrong? From my point of view, and I don't doubt yours, there can be no doubt of it. I can say he was wrong. I can say I regret the fact that one of my ancestors was involved in such an evil and monstrous thing. I CANNOT MAKE AN APOLOGY ON HIS BEHALF. Why? Because that would be a lie. He didn't regret it, and he sure as hell wouldn't have apologized. I've read his diary.

I've no doubt it would help the families of those enslaved to hear an apology for how their ancestors were treated, but "it would make them feel good" is NOT a good enough reason to give an apology. An apology without sincerity is nothing but empty, useless words - and no one can sincerely apologize for what they are not responsible for.



If you steal something, then give it to someone else, suddenly it isn't stolen? And it's fine for the person who got it to keep it?

Doesn't sound right to me.

Nor is it - until time steps in. Yes, justice does come with a time limit. If we don't accept that, we'll be in the same sad situation as many peoples in the Balkans and some other areas - feuds over thousand-year old grievances that no one even remembers the start of anymore.

I cannot be responsible, nor held responsible, for any actions save my own. It's the only civilized choice.

I've no doubt it would help the families of those enslaved to hear an apology for how their ancestors were treated, but "it would make them feel good" is NOT a good enough reason to give an apology. An apology without sincerity is nothing but empty, useless words - and no one can sincerely apologize for what they are not responsible for.

I do believe you are contradicting yourself here. If it would help and have a positive impact, then it is demonstrably not useless.

I do believe you are contradicting yourself here. If it would help and have a positive impact, then it is demonstrably not useless.

I disagree. An insincere apology is nothing but a hurtful lie.

I disagree. An insincere apology is nothing but a hurtful lie.

Disagreeing with yourself? You just said:

I've no doubt it would help the families of those enslaved to hear an apology

Disagreeing with yourself? You just said:

I also said ""it would make them feel good" is NOT a good enough reason to give an apology."

And no, I was disagreeing with your statement that it would have a positive impact. Making people feel better is only a short term bandage on a larger problem - which solution is time and economic and social equalisation to eliminate the effects of slavery, which are still being felt to this day.

I also said ""it would make them feel good" is NOT a good enough reason to give an apology."


Your conclusion isn't the self contradictory part, it's the bits that came before it.


And no, I was disagreeing with your statement that it would have a positive impact. Making people feel better is only a short term bandage on a larger problem - which solution is time and economic and social equalisation to eliminate the effects of slavery, which are still being felt to this day.

So what, "short term bandages" are now harmful? If Y isn't as helpful as X, Y is harmful?

Your conclusion isn't the self contradictory part, it's the bits that came before it.



So what, "short term bandages" are now harmful? If Y isn't as helpful as X, Y is harmful?

Not always, but it can be, if people mistake it for real change and repair. If putting a bandage on helps the wound heal, great. If it just covers the suppurating infection so that real treatment isn't given, it's just making the situation worse.

I'm not sure if people are getting what Daistallia is asking. From a natural rights libertarian perspective only property that was legitimately acquired can count as property. This comes from homesteading or trade, but historically force has been used to aquire large amounts of property and with the relatively large public sectors and transfer payment schemes most to all of ones property can be seen to have been gained through theft at some point in the past. By this I mean since the circular flow of the economy the incomes of everyone can probably be traced back to the expenditures of public sector employees, privet sector workers with government contracts, welfare recipients, or elderly pensioners sometime in the past. How can libertarians reconcile their beliefs with this reality?

Indeed, thank you.

You obviously don't have enough to do with your life, if you're obsessing about what your grandparents did or didn't do, or to whom. One of the benefits to society from NOT cultivating "Generational Guilt" complexes, is that we don't have an epidemic of multigenerational feuds. You can't stuff the mushroom cloud back into the steel casing, and you can't un-do what's been done. The only thing you have a moral duty to, is that which you can do, in this, your life, not to hurt someone else who didn't hurt you first-in this, your life. Not grampa's life, or great-grampa, or back in old Ireland under Cromwell.

When you validate ancient grievances, you validate present feuds.

You're reading far too much into a simple question.

This has nothing to do with guilt. It has to do with what is and is not legitimately one's property. Can one rightfully own property that was gained through force, theft, or fraud? If not then why does it matter how long ago the theft/force/fraud occurred? If so then there is a contradiction between that and natural rights libertarianism.

Exactly. If one legitimately follows the non-agression principle, one shouldn't benifit from any agression at all.

I suspect most replies are not from adherents.

Anyone here care to argue that the non-agression principal allows this seeming contradiction?

Okay, now determine "Un-Owned" land.

Land that hasn't been homesteaded or mixed with labor. Duh.

Not always, but it can be, if people mistake it for real change and repair. If putting a bandage on helps the wound heal, great. If it just covers the suppurating infection so that real treatment isn't given, it's just making the situation worse.

Well, no one seems to have suggested an apology be used in lieu of any measures for social and racial equality, that I can see?

So, any right libertarians want to take up this argument? Or is it just to be left to the dogs?

Well, no one seems to have suggested an apology be used in lieu of any measures for social and racial equality, that I can see?

No? I don't know how much you know about Australian politics, but there was a situation here that pretty much summed it up.

Under PM Howard, we had a huge argument over an apology to the Aboriginal people for getting the ol' smackdown from Euro colonists. After much debate both in the Parliament and the court of public opinion, there was an eventual apology from the Parliament, and a national "Sorry" day, and "Sorry" books you could sign if you felt the need (or couldn't resist the pressure to conform), "Sorry" this and that and the other, and it was a big ol' "Sorry" fest for a while.

And then it was over. And what had been accomplished? NOT A DAMN THING. And Aboriginal issues? They got backburnered for years cause "that had been done".

"in lieu of" is just EXACTLY what happened. Instead of using the millions of dollars that got spent on "SORRY", we could have had actual progams that just might have done some real good. Oh, and we got pollies talking about "reconciliation" for awhile - but even that seems to have vanished.

Pardon my cynicism, but I'd rather have a coat when I'm freezing than all the words of condolence in the dictionary.

It's a good question, honestly, and one I can't easily answer. The best I can come up with is the fact that wealth circulates through the economy; unless you literally stuff it in a mattress and never touch it, it will circulate through the economy in various forms and so it becomes increasingly difficult to determine what's legitimate and what's not. I would say once you stopped earning money from those illegitimate transactions, over time the money would gradually be "cleaned" and so its relation to the original act would be greatly reduced and eventually eliminated. Otherwise, anyone who was paid for goods or services out of those funds would also be guilty and all of the people who receive their money would in turn be guilty until the entire economy is influenced.

I think the only real option would be to determine what came from where and give any "tarnished" money away to a good cause. Beyond that, there really isn't much you can do.

Having looked over some of the literature I've got on the subject, I've come to the conclusion that Libertarian Capitalism dodges the question - because according to the pure theory, inheritance isn't permitted. The only tax is an inheritance tax, but it's at 100%, and pays for what government sevices are actually necessary.

If posessed property was stolen, and the party (or that party's heir) from whom it has been stolen can be located, the property must be returned. Where lawful title cannot be determined, ownership reverts to the posessor.

Slavery is a bit harder to unravel. I can't really say what's right under those circumstances - but I rather doubt there are very many here who are filthy rich because great-great-great-grampa owned a plantation. Here's a question in return: My skin is of a pale hue, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no one in my family who descended from a slaveholder. By what right do the darker-hued people (many of whom are not descended from slaves, BTW) demand my property based on the criminal actions of some other pale-skined guy 150 years ago?

It's a good question, honestly, and one I can't easily answer. The best I can come up with is the fact that wealth circulates through the economy; unless you literally stuff it in a mattress and never touch it, it will circulate through the economy in various forms and so it becomes increasingly difficult to determine what's legitimate and what's not. I would say once you stopped earning money from those illegitimate transactions, over time the money would gradually be "cleaned" and so its relation to the original act would be greatly reduced and eventually eliminated. Otherwise, anyone who was paid for goods or services out of those funds would also be guilty and all of the people who receive their money would in turn be guilty until the entire economy is influenced.

I think the only real option would be to determine what came from where and give any "tarnished" money away to a good cause. Beyond that, there really isn't much you can do.

Until your last paragraph, I thought you were recommending "money laundering" as a solution!!!

Land that hasn't been homesteaded or mixed with labor. Duh.

Okay, now...find some. There isn't a habitable spot on the planet that hasn't had people living there, some of them quite recently. There's never really been "Virgin Wilderness" untouched by man-well, maybe in Antarctica... but that's not exactly habitable, is it? You're not going to find a spot on earth that people are ABLE to live, that hasn't been "Stolen" or "Conquered" at some point by someone. It doesn't Exist.

I'll start by noting I've inherited nothing so far as I know that was stolen from anyone. I have no dog in this fight.

The simplest answer is that two wrongs don't make a right. If my great-great-grandpa ripped off yours, how does that justify you ripping me off? I did nothing to you. Property crimes in the Anglo/common law tradition have strict time limits, precisely to avoid intergenerational feuds. Why would you want to overturn that? I don't gain any credit for good deeds committed by my ancestors. Why should I feel any guilt for their crimes?

Another objection is the assumption of facts not in evidence (IANAL). Where is the data showing that most large accumulations of wealth have a background in force? That may be true in Europe; it is true of the US only if you consider capitalism itself to be force.

Until your last paragraph, I thought you were recommending "money laundering" as a solution!!!

I guess it is money laundering in the sense that illegitimate transactions are eventually "washed" by circulating through the economy.

If posessed property was stolen, and the party (or that party's heir) from whom it has been stolen can be located, the property must be returned. Where lawful title cannot be determined, ownership reverts to the possessor.

Elaborate on the justifications for this. Why is theft legitimated after time has past?

My skin is of a pale hue, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no one in my family who descended from a slaveholder. By what right do the darker-hued people (many of whom are not descended from slaves, BTW) demand my property based on the criminal actions of some other pale-skined guy 150 years ago?

Generally the idea for reparations for racism have more to do with systemic biases against them from the time of slavery to the present day. Its more than just what happened 150 years ago.

Okay, now...find some. There isn't a habitable spot on the planet that hasn't had people living there, some of them quite recently. There's never really been "Virgin Wilderness" untouched by man-well, maybe in Antarctica... but that's not exactly habitable, is it? You're not going to find a spot on earth that people are ABLE to live, that hasn't been "Stolen" or "Conquered" at some point by someone. It doesn't Exist.

If there's no unowned property then the idea is to trade for some. If all land has been stolen at time or another than there is some contradictions in natural rights libertarian thought that need some explaining.

The simplest answer is that two wrongs don't make a right. If my great-great-grandpa ripped off yours, how does that justify you ripping me off? I did nothing to you.

Its not ripping you off. Take a stolen painting my great-grandfather theoretically stole from your great-grandfather. If the courts decided that I should give the painting to you I'm not being ripped off because you, and your predecessors were always the the legitimate owner.

Property crimes in the Anglo/common law tradition have strict time limits, precisely to avoid intergenerational feuds. Why would you want to overturn that?

Because just because the common law tradition is against it doesn't mean its the right way to do it.

I don't gain any credit for good deeds committed by my ancestors. Why should I feel any guilt for their crimes?

Guilt, the feeling, has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Property rights are what this thread is about.

Another objection is the assumption of facts not in evidence (IANAL). Where is the data showing that most large accumulations of wealth have a background in force? That may be true in Europe; it is true of the US only if you consider capitalism itself to be force.

If you ever read any history of Native American history you'd realize there has been a lot of theft of land and natural resources. Treaties with native tribes that were never enforce, forced relocations to reservations which only possessed shitty land, outright warfare.. yadda yadda yadda.

Elaborate on the justifications for this. Why is theft legitimated after time has past?



Generally the idea for reparations for racism have more to do with systemic biases against them from the time of slavery to the present day. Its more than just what happened 150 years ago.

No more than, say, injustices from the conquest of the Normans in 1066, or the Saxon invasions that drove out the Britons and conquered Londinium, or the Roman invasion before that, or the wars between Gauls and Germans and germans and germans and Etruscans and Romans...


If there's no unowned property then the idea is to trade for some. If all land has been stolen at time or another than there is some contradictions in natural rights libertarian thought that need some explaining.


Yes, there ARE. Like any idealistic half-thought-out leftist garbage, it ignores human tendencies and human behaviour to model something that never existed (or didn't exist past the early Paleolithic era.) People are not, on the whole, Peaceable when they want something and you don't want to give them the price they want to pay for it. We've ritualized the act of bludgeoning and coercion into Civil Court cases, Lawsuits, laws, and ideas like "Eminent Domain", and the definition of "Stronger" has shifted, but the principle remains in force-or, rather, the "Force" remains a principle. If you don't understand, consider what happens to you if you refuse to honour the judgement of a Civil Court lawsuit-especially if you Absolutely refuse to honour it-taken through the entire process, you will end up dead if you refuse strongly enough, but lack the force to overturn it.


Its not ripping you off. Take a stolen painting my great-grandfather theoretically stole from your great-grandfather. If the courts decided that I should give the painting to you I'm not being ripped off because you, and your predecessors were always the the legitimate owner.

And by using the Courts, you're using the power of state-sanctioned death as a final penalty should he NOT comply with your demand...and your claim doesn't need to have merit for you to WIN a court-case, it merely requires that you have a more powerful Lawyer who is better at carrying out the necessary rituals.


Because just because the common law tradition is against it doesn't mean its the right way to do it.

Describe a better way?


Guilt, the feeling, has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Property rights are what this thread is about.


Guilt is Entirely what this thread is about. AS in the "Land Reform" example earlier (Zimbabwe), the Farmers evicted had combined labour and intellectual capital to create something that was of benefit where there WAS nothing of benefit. The land, turned to a non-productive state, has harmed the very individuals who sought to benefit from taking over what someone else had MADE for their own profit.


If you ever read any history of Native American history you'd realize there has been a lot of theft of land and natural resources. Treaties with native tribes that were never enforce, forced relocations to reservations which only possessed shitty land, outright warfare.. yadda yadda yadda.

Well... let's see... the Blackfoot-Lakota wars...did you know the Cherokee practiced slavery? They were the terror of their neighbours before being terrorized themselves, the Algonquin tribes routinely conqured enslaved, and such each other and their neighbours, and don't forget the Aztecs...or the deep love and respect (sarcasm) that exists between the Navajo and Hopi-going back centuries before the Spanish arrived, and the wars that destroyed the Pueblo Peoples at Crow Canyon-wars that exterminated their cities centuries before the Spanish reached north america. Don't make the mistake of assuming because someone was conquered, that their being conquered didn't make them a thief, murderer, etc. themselves-and your obvious embracing of Collective Guilt requires (for consistency) that you weigh them on the same scales you condemn the ones that out-dealt, out-fought, and out-dirtied their own tactics.

No more than, say, injustices from the conquest of the Normans in 1066, or the Saxon invasions that drove out the Britons and conquered Londinium, or the Roman invasion before that, or the wars between Gauls and Germans and germans and germans and Etruscans and Romans...

You'll have to tell me how britons, Gauls, romans, and etruscans are currently being dscriminated against.


Yes, there ARE. Like any idealistic half-thought-out leftist garbage, it ignores human tendencies and human behaviour to model something that never existed (or didn't exist past the early Paleolithic era.)

Technically libertarian thought is usually considered "rightist" or "centrist" unless were using 19th century usages of left and right.

Describe a better way

From a practical or normative perspective?

Guilt is Entirely what this thread is about. AS in the "Land Reform" example earlier (Zimbabwe), the Farmers evicted had combined labour and intellectual capital to create something that was of benefit where there WAS nothing of benefit. The land, turned to a non-productive state, has harmed the very individuals who sought to benefit from taking over what someone else had MADE for their own profit.

As I said before consequences are unimportant to natural rights libertarianism. Also it doesn't matter what someone made of it given it was based on stolen good.

Well... let's see... the Blackfoot-Lakota wars...did you know the Cherokee practiced slavery? They were the terror of their neighbours before being terrorized themselves, the Algonquin tribes routinely conqured enslaved, and such each other and their neighbours, and don't forget the Aztecs...or the deep love and respect (sarcasm) that exists between the Navajo and Hopi-going back centuries before the Spanish arrived, and the wars that destroyed the Pueblo Peoples at Crow Canyon-wars that exterminated their cities centuries before the Spanish reached north america. Don't make the mistake of assuming because someone was conquered, that their being conquered didn't make them a thief, murderer, etc. themselves-and your obvious embracing of Collective Guilt requires (for consistency) that you weigh them on the same scales you condemn the ones that out-dealt, out-fought, and out-dirtied their own tactics.

I did know most of this. Please realize that I was only correcting Sarparti. Also, please realize that I am not a natural rights libertarian. I am merely pointing out what they believe since they are the ones that this thread was aimed. From what I have seen Lord Tothe is the only NRL who replied.

Guilt is Entirely what this thread is about.

Wrong. It is a specific question dealing with a narrow point of a philosophy posited because of what seems to be a contradiction in said philosophy.

I'll point out that your "defense" of the use of force to steal most of the US from it's rightful owners amounts to little more than "they were wrong, so two wrongs make a right!"

I'll point out that your "defense" of the use of force to steal most of the US from it's rightful owners amounts to little more than "they were wrong, so two wrongs make a right!"

which, i suppose, could be taken as an actual claim - that it is permissible to 'wrong' someone if they have wronged someone else. seems like a difficult chain to end, of course.

What if that wealth came directly from crime such as the Gotti family or any American "gangster"? While you did not steal, kill, extort for the money, you benefit from that money. Ordinary human morality say it is okay.

Question: Are we talking at a society level or individual level?

Should we give the lands back to the Native Americans or on a case by case basis?

Wrong. It is a specific question dealing with a narrow point of a philosophy posited because of what seems to be a contradiction in said philosophy.

I'll point out that your "defense" of the use of force to steal most of the US from it's rightful owners amounts to little more than "they were wrong, so two wrongs make a right!"

a lot of the conflict with native Americans came from land use. In the areas where nomadic Indians hunted and moved. A settler would show up during a season when the natives were not there and figure it was okay to set up a farm.
one or two small farms were not a big deal. but a few more years and the hunting trails get ruined by such farms the conflict begins. there was also the matter of 90% of the native the native population be reduced by disease but wishing to hang on to 100% of their land.
As one chief put it "we didn't need all the land, but neither did you."
the conflict was a mess as all our conflicts.

a lot of the conflict with native Americans came from land use. In the areas where nomadic Indians hunted and moved. A settler would show up during a season when the natives were not there and figure it was okay to set up a farm.
one or two small farms were not a big deal. but a few more years and the hunting trails get ruined by such farms the conflict begins. there was also the matter of 90% of the native the native population be reduced by disease but wishing to hang on to 100% of their land.
As one chief put it "we didn't need all the land, but neither did you."
the conflict was a mess as all our conflicts.

Also there is almost no way we can ever pay them back. Europeans started coming over in larger and larger numbers. I think at some level we knew what the effect was going to be but we felt it was the better way.

I had hoped you were talking about this Q:

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~lxl/personal/images/fun/bond/q009.jpg

Also there is almost no way we can ever pay them back. Europeans started coming over in larger and larger numbers. I think at some level we knew what the effect was going to be but we felt it was the better way.

we didn't have to stop coming over. migrations are normal.
Both sides could have made compromise via understanding.
Imagine how strong the Us would have been if it had not been fighting the natives for the first 150 years of its existence.

we didn't have to stop coming over. migrations are normal.
Both sides could have made compromise via understanding.
Imagine how strong the Us would have been if it had not been fighting the natives for the first 150 years of its existence.

Ideally you are correct but what happens when your world views are very much different which was the case. Ideas come into conflict with one another and then you have turmoil.

Once you break the egg it is difficult to get back into the shell. The Native Americans only hope was to kill every last one of us. They were basically a peaceful people and they could not see the future. If they could have I think maybe the outcome would have been different.

Once Christopher Columbus bumped into the America ( actually the Caribbean) their lives were fundamentally changed. That is history for you.

There was little question what the conquistadors wanted, gold and people to mine it. In North America it was a little different, not as overt.

It is the difference between active and passive expansionism. The goal is the same but the method is that which differs. Passive is much slower process. When you put two groups of people in contact with one another each must adapt or risk assimilation. That appears to be what happened. Same kind of thing happened in Australia. We tried in Africa to some degree of success.

No? I don't know how much you know about Australian politics, but there was a situation here that pretty much summed it up.

Under PM Howard, we had a huge argument over an apology to the Aboriginal people for getting the ol' smackdown from Euro colonists. After much debate both in the Parliament and the court of public opinion, there was an eventual apology from the Parliament, and a national "Sorry" day, and "Sorry" books you could sign if you felt the need (or couldn't resist the pressure to conform), "Sorry" this and that and the other, and it was a big ol' "Sorry" fest for a while.

And then it was over. And what had been accomplished? NOT A DAMN THING. And Aboriginal issues? They got backburnered for years cause "that had been done".

"in lieu of" is just EXACTLY what happened. Instead of using the millions of dollars that got spent on "SORRY", we could have had actual progams that just might have done some real good. Oh, and we got pollies talking about "reconciliation" for awhile - but even that seems to have vanished.

Pardon my cynicism, but I'd rather have a coat when I'm freezing than all the words of condolence in the dictionary.

I would too. But just because this apparently happened in Australia doesn't mean it's universally the case whenever the subject of apologies for slavery comes up.

I would too. But just because this apparently happened in Australia doesn't mean it's universally the case whenever the subject of apologies for slavery comes up.

But...it is. Or, rather, another way to look at it, you either generate an empty apology as happened with the Abos in Australia, or you get an ever-expanding, never-ending list of demands and resentments issued either by, or on behalf of, people who feel "Entitled" because their ancestor was wronged.

Either way, what does NOT happen, is the happy-shiney-rainbows-kumbayah result you'd hoped for.

Ideally you are correct but what happens when your world views are very much different which was the case. Ideas come into conflict with one another and then you have turmoil.

If wars are inevitable then they need no justification.
If instead all wars and conflicts are preventable then their is no justification for war.

Once you break the egg it is difficult to get back into the shell. The Native Americans only hope was to kill every last one of us. They were basically a peaceful people and they could not see the future. If they could have I think maybe the outcome would have been different.

The native Americans were no more or less peaceful then the Europeans.
The whole native Americans were peaceful came about during the revision movements of the 70's. The revisions were needed but they were far to extreme. Now no serious historian tries to assert that the native Americans were nothing but peaceful nature lovers.
quite a large number of native Americans could and assimilate and in the assimilation change the culture you assimilate too. Look at Mexico it is the mestizo that are the dominate ethnic group. Conflict is not nor was it ever the only option for native Americans. It is just how it happened in the US because of mistakes on both sides.

Once Christopher Columbus bumped into the America ( actually the Caribbean) their lives were fundamentally changed. That is history for you.

There was little question what the conquistadors wanted, gold and people to mine it. In North America it was a little different, not as overt.
History always has turning points however conflict itself is not inevitable.

But...it is. Or, rather, another way to look at it, you either generate an empty apology as happened with the Abos in Australia, or you get an ever-expanding, never-ending list of demands and resentments issued either by, or on behalf of, people who feel "Entitled" because their ancestor was wronged.

I love the smell of false dichotomies in the morning.

Either way, what does NOT happen, is the happy-shiney-rainbows-kumbayah result you'd hoped for.

And burning strawmen.

If wars are inevitable then they need no justification.
If instead all wars and conflicts are preventable then their is no justification for war.

I totally agree with conflict did not need to happen. When a less technologically advanced civilization comes into contact with a more technologically advanced civilization usually it is only a matter of time. You could tell by the wqay they talk calling them savages and such. It really is terrible what happend I am just not sure what anyone can do to correct it. Is an apology enough?


The native Americans were no more or less peaceful then the Europeans.
The whole native Americans were peaceful came about during the revision movements of the 70's. The revisions were needed but they were far to extreme. Now no serious historian tries to assert that the native Americans were nothing but peaceful nature lovers.
quite a large number of native Americans could and assimilate and in the assimilation change the culture you assimilate too. Look at Mexico it is the mestizo that are the dominate ethnic group. Conflict is not nor was it ever the only option for native Americans. It is just how it happened in the US because of mistakes on both sides.

History always has turning points however conflict itself is not inevitable.

I think they were just trying to slow us down a little. Once we started heading west, I think on some level we knew what would happen. Things like ownership of land which was very much foreign concept to Native Americans. Sorry to pick on Christopher Columbus but he was met with kindness and open arms and how did we repay them? I am not sure you can undo something like that.

I would too. But just because this apparently happened in Australia doesn't mean it's universally the case whenever the subject of apologies for slavery comes up.

No, that's true. But when you add the unfortunate likelihood of it (politicians ARE the same everywhere), along with the questionable right (I'd say unquestionable wrong) of forcing the apology of another (even if they are dead), and the fact that both those apologising are not those in the wrong nor that those accepting are those wronged, I think you have a pretty good argument against this kind of feel-good, do-nothing measure.

No, that's true. But when you add the unfortunate likelihood of it (politicians ARE the same everywhere), along with the questionable right (I'd say unquestionable wrong) of forcing the apology of another (even if they are dead), and the fact that both those apologising are not those in the wrong nor that those accepting are those wronged, I think you have a pretty good argument against this kind of feel-good, do-nothing measure.

Sure, politicians can screw things up. (This goes for anything at all.) Doesn't mean they will or that we should just give up.

When talking of the US for example, the question of states apologizing is perfectly valid. States exist, they don't die.

I totally agree with conflict did not need to happen. When a less technologically advanced civilization comes into contact with a more technologically advanced civilization usually it is only a matter of time. You could tell by the wqay they talk calling them savages and such. It really is terrible what happend I am just not sure what anyone can do to correct it. Is an apology enough?

I find an apology to be insulting. Just treat them better from this moment on is all we can do.



I think they were just trying to slow us down a little. Once we started heading west, I think on some level we knew what would happen. Things like ownership of land which was very much foreign concept to Native Americans. Sorry to pick on Christopher Columbus but he was met with kindness and open arms and how did we repay them? I am not sure you can undo something like that.

did you know new Spain got better over time? The king of Spain (under pressure from the pope) forbid enslaving native Americans who became Christian. (given they just switched to Africans then). After Independence power would rotate between creoles (Europeans, mestizos, and native Americans) through out most of Latin America.
And as for Native Americans and property. Only the plains Indians lacked a concept of personal ownership of land and even then they had an Idea of tribal ownership of the land(most inter plains Indians wars were either raiding or driving someone off your hunting grounds). Most of the tribes that had farming did in fact have private ownership of land in the US.
the whole idea that all the natives lived communally, were in touch with nature, and were peaceful, is mostly a bunch of misconceptions that came out of the 60's.

I find an apology to be insulting. Just treat them better form this moment on is all we can do.

I agree. Well said.


did you know new Spain got better over time? The king of Spain (under pressure from the pope) forbid enslaving native Americans who became Christian. (given they just switched to Africans then). After Independence power would rotate between creoles (Europeans, mestizos, and native Americans) through out most of Latin America.
And as for Native Americans and property. Only the plains Indians lacked a concept of personal ownership of land and even then they had an Idea of tribal ownership of the land(most inter plains Indians wars were either raiding or driving someone off your hunting grounds). Most of the tribes that had farming did in fact have private ownership of land in the US.
the whole idea that all the natives lived communally, were in touch with nature, and were peaceful, is mostly a bunch of misconceptions that came out of the 60's.

Yeah after they conquered and enslaved 3 separate populations: Mayas, Incas, and Aztec. They pretty much took over a whole continent. I don't think there is a single continent we didn't mess up at some point.

Sure, politicians can screw things up. (This goes for anything at all.) Doesn't mean they will or that we should just give up.

When talking of the US for example, the question of states apologizing is perfectly valid. States exist, they don't die.

But states are made up of two things: a land, and a population. Given the former is inanimate, what you're actually doing is apologizing on behalf of a population. That's fine if you're talking about a population complicit in, or containing persons who, comitted the offence. For instance, if Japan apologized to the "comfort women" from WWII, that would be a guilty party apologizing to the wronged party(s). At least for the next couple of years.

But to apologize for slavery (just as a for-instance), you would be apologizing for the blameless to the unwronged. You cannot apologize to the dead; they cannot accept. You cannot apologize for the dead; that is arrogance.

{snip}


I think they were just trying to slow us down a little. Once we started heading west, I think on some level we knew what would happen. Things like ownership of land which was very much foreign concept to Native Americans. Sorry to pick on Christopher Columbus but he was met with kindness and open arms and how did we repay them? I am not sure you can undo something like that.

Ah, ignorance. Study the "indian Wars" era a bit, you'll find a couple of interesting tactical facts:

No expedition against any of the Tribes/Nations occurred without first recruiting supplementary personnel from those Tribes/Nations' "Native American" enemies. In several cases, regions ended up being conquered after U.S. forces were brought in by one side to fight another.

ALL the nations bought weapons from the white man for the express purpose of offing their neighbours-this goes all the way back to early french trade practices, and continued under British influence, then under the United States. Many of the weapons used to kill that idiot Custer were Civil War surplus, and one of the primary charges levelled against John Chivington was that he was attacking an important U.S. Ally in the West at Sand Creek.

Many of the more brutal tactics used by both the Union and Confederacy were techniques used by "Indians" on both whites, and each other. There is a reason that the Apache are still ranked as among the best light cavalry in history-and it's not just that they were good horsemen-it's that they were good at fighting other people from horseback-and by fighting, I mean "killing". The Native American nations were some of the best killers around, and if they hadn't been depleted thanks to Spanish-origin diseases flying down trade routes (Spain started conquering the continents in the 1500's) ahead of exploration and settlement, they might well have greeted British and French explorers in the north with more than a wave and a handshake.

"peaceful" they weren't, and in many cases, they were active participants in their own destruction, not due to naivete and peaceableness or communality, but due to a desire to kill their traditional enemies and take their stuff...just like every OTHER people on earth at that time.

Ah, ignorance. Study the "indian Wars" era a bit, you'll find a couple of interesting tactical facts:

No expedition against any of the Tribes/Nations occurred without first recruiting supplementary personnel from those Tribes/Nations' "Native American" enemies. In several cases, regions ended up being conquered after U.S. forces were brought in by one side to fight another.

ALL the nations bought weapons from the white man for the express purpose of offing their neighbours-this goes all the way back to early french trade practices, and continued under British influence, then under the United States. Many of the weapons used to kill that idiot Custer were Civil War surplus, and one of the primary charges leveled against John Chivington was that he was attacking an important U.S. Ally in the West at Sand Creek.

Many of the more brutal tactics used by both the Union and Confederacy were techniques used by "Indians" on both whites, and each other. There is a reason that the Apache are still ranked as among the best light cavalry in history-and it's not just that they were good horsemen-it's that they were good at fighting other people from horseback-and by fighting, I mean "killing". The Native American nations were some of the best killers around, and if they hadn't been depleted thanks to Spanish-origin diseases flying down trade routes (Spain started conquering the continents in the 1500's) ahead of exploration and settlement, they might well have greeted British and French explorers in the north with more than a wave and a handshake.

"peaceful" they weren't, and in many cases, they were active participants in their own destruction, not due to naivete and peaceableness or communality, but due to a desire to kill their traditional enemies and take their stuff...just like every OTHER people on earth at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull

On June 25, 1876, Custer’s 7th Cavalry advance party of General Alfred Howe Terry’s column attacked Indian tribes at their camp on the Little Big Horn River expecting a similar victory. The U.S. army did not realize that before the battle began, more than 2,000 Native Americans had left their reservations to follow Sitting Bull. The attacking Sioux, inspired by a vision of Sitting Bull’s, in which he saw U.S. soldiers being killed as they entered the tribe’s camp, fought back. Custer's badly outnumbered troops lost ground quickly and were forced to retreat, as they began to realize the true numbers of the Native American force. The tribes then led a counter-attack against the soldiers on a nearby ridge, ultimately annihilating the soldiers.

The Native Americans' celebrations were short-lived, however, as public outrage at Custer's death and defeat and the heightened awareness of the remaining Sioux brought thousands more soldiers to the area. Over the next year, the new American military forces pursued the Lakota, forcing many of the Indians to surrender. Sitting Bull refused to surrender and in May 1877 led his band across the border into Saskatchewan, Canada where he remained in exile for many years near Wood Mountain, refusing a pardon and the chance to return


I was not questioning their skill or their resolve. They are to be respected for what they accomplished. They certainly did not go down without a fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA

Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land. The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size.