Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense of Liberty: Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff
The Ayn Rand Institute ^ | September 15, 1998 - September 12, 2001 | Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Andrew Lewis

Posted on 10/13/2001 8:34:37 AM PDT by annalex

Released: September 15, 1998

Fanning the Flames of Terrorism
Clinton’s “Anti-Terrorist Policy” Should Target Governments Not Individuals
By Leonard Peikoff and Andrew Lewis

     The recent attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were a bloody reminder of the threat posed by terrorists. Almost all commentators and politicians hailed America’s swift response as a positive step. In fact, however, Clinton’s assault on Osama bin Laden will only encourage the terrorists.
     In recent years, America’s reaction to terrorist acts has been a mixture of cowardly compromise and empty legalistic threats. In the two months prior to the embassy attacks alone, the Clinton Administration made three outstanding concessions. It capitulated to Libya, promising to drop all UN sanctions if it releases the prime suspects in the Lockerbie bombing for trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law. It closed the investigation into TWA 800, leaving forever unresolved the cause of the disaster. It emasculated the investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, because evidence emerged linking the bombing to Iran, whose regime Clinton is now courting.
     By promising only trials and international courts, Clinton has made a mockery of the atrocities. Terrorists have no respect for the rule of law; that is why they are called “terrorists.” Administration officials repeatedly assert that we are engaged in a “war against terrorism.” True — and wars are not fought or won in a courtroom.
     The attacks on Osama bin Laden’s facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were lauded by many as a welcome change from years of this legalistic claptrap. However, the attacks were deliberately toothless. Clinton aimed at a few peripheral installations, while proudly proclaiming his commitment that no “innocent” working a night shift in the Sudan would die. There are no innocents in a war — and certainly none in a chemical weapons facility. The clear implication is that saving terrorist agents is more important to the President than protecting Americans who will be killed by their weapons. In essence, Clinton has declared “open season” on Americans.
     Most important, Clinton’s attacks diverted attention from the real agents of terrorism. In blaming and targeting a single individual — in insisting that an isolated maniac was responsible and lying to deny that man’s proven connections with Middle East governments — Clinton exonerated all terrorist-sponsoring regimes, including Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and others. It is not merely that Clinton wanted to avoid offending the Afghani Taliban and the Sudanese government. He wanted to avoid offending any governments involved in terrorism, despite their proven function as protector and sanctioner of the killers. The result: he showed each and every one of these governments that they are safe to sponsor as many bin Ladens as they want.
     Terrorism is a form of war. Evil men such as bin Laden cannot wage it alone. Although bin Laden certainly deserves to die, his capacity to kill and maim is made possible only by the governments that shelter his kind. Only governments have the power to protect terrorists, sponsor or wink at their training camps, and provide or applaud their weapons, transport and all the other support necessary to enter and exit their target countries. Targeting the individual killer leaves the real mass murderer — the terrorist-loving government — unpunished, secure in the knowledge that their victim is too cowardly to retaliate in kind.
     The inevitable result of this policy is exactly what bin Laden has promised: a continuing war against Americans. The bombing of an American restaurant in South Africa a few days later was only the beginning. From Teheran to Tripoli, the governmental sponsors of terrorism will continue to protect the bin Ladens of this world until and unless they are shown that they themselves will suffer massively for doing so.
     The only way to end terrorism is through a policy of real military strikes against the aggressors. If, as the Clinton Administration tells us repeatedly, we are engaged in a war, then let us see a war, fought not with words, but with the full, untrammeled power of our military, including, as and when necessary, the use of our most potent and destructive weapons against the seat of the governments involved.
     The only alternative is the continued slaughter of Americans by terrorist bombs ignited by the cowardice of American policy-makers.

Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. http://www.aynrand.org


Released: September 12, 2001

Fifty Years of Appeasement Led to Black Tuesday
By Leonard Peikoff Download an image of this author for print publication.)-->

       Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the United States. The inevitable climax was the tens of thousands of deaths on September 11, 2001—the blackest day in our history, so far. The Palestinians, among others, responded by dancing in the streets and handing out candy.
       Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower ceded to the Arabs the West's property rights in oil—although that oil properly belonged to those in the West whose science and technology made its discovery and use possible.
       This capitulation was not practical, but philosophical. The Arab dictators were denouncing the wealthy egoistic West. They were crying that the masses of their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew all this by means of ineffable or otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer aloud that Americans, rightfully, were motivated by the selfish desire to pursue personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.
       The Arabs embodied in extreme form every idea—selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group—which our universities and churches, and our own political Establishment, had long been preaching as the essence of virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent wins.
       After property came liberty. The Iranian dictator Khomeini threatened with death a British author—and with destruction his American publisher—if they exercised their right to free speech. He explained that the book in question offended the religion of his people. The Bush Administration looked the other way.
       After liberty came American life itself—as in Iran's support of the massacre of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the Afghanistan-based assault on our embassies in East Africa. Again, the American response was unbridled appeasement: a Realpolitikisch desire not to "jeopardize relations" with the aggressor country, covered up by a purely rhetorical vow to punish the guilty, along with an occasional pretend bombing. By now, the world knows that we are indeed a paper tiger.
       We have not only appeased terrorists, we have actively created them. The Reagan Administration—holding that Islamic fundamentalists were our ideological allies in the fight against the atheistic Soviets—poured money and expertise into Afghanistan to create an ever-growing band of terrorists recruited from all over the Mideast. Most of these terrorists knew what to do with their American training; their goal was not to save Afghanistan.
       The final guarantee of American impotence is the bipartisan proclamation that a terrorist is an individual alone responsible for his actions, and that "we must try each before a court of law." This is tantamount, while under a Nazi aerial bombardment, to seeking out and trying the pilots involved while ignoring Hitler and Germany.
       Terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of the governments behind them. Their lethal behavior is that of the regimes that make them possible. Their killings are not crimes, but acts of war. The only proper response to such acts is war in self-defense.
       We do not need more evidence to "pinpoint" the perpetrators of any one of these atrocities, including the latest and most egregious—we already have total certainty with regard to the governments primarily responsible for the repeated slaughter of Americans in recent years. We must now use our unsurpassed military to destroy all branches of the Iranian and Afghani governments, regardless of the suffering and death this will bring to the many innocents caught in the line of fire. We must wipe out the terrorist training camps or sanctuaries, and eliminate any retaliatory military capability—and thereby terrorize and paralyze all the tyrannies watching, who will now know what is in store for them if they choose in any form to attack the United States. That will be the end of the terrorists.
       Our missiles and occupation troops, however, will be effective only if they are preceded by our President's morally righteous statement that we intend hereafter to defend by every means possible each American's right to his property, his liberty, and his secure enjoyment of life here on earth.
       To those who oppose war, I ask: If not now, when? How many more corpses are necessary before this country should take action?
       The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. President Bush must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who seek to kill them.

Leonard Peikoff is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.     Send Feedback


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last
Source links:

"Fanning the Flames..."

"Fifty Years of Appeasement..."

It was gratifying to see Dr. Peikoff take a consistent libertarian position on O'Reilly's program (guest-hosted by Kasich) yesterday. These are two of Peikoff's articles on the same subject.

The previous articles in the series were

Defense of Liberty
The Contours of Victory

Let me know if the new single-bump system doesn't work.

1 posted on 10/13/2001 8:34:37 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Agrarian; A.J.Armitage; AKbear; annalex; arimus; Askel5; Boxsford; Carbon; Carry_Okie...

St George and the Dragon


2 posted on 10/13/2001 8:40:03 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *libertarians
Bump. Getting used to the new method. Sadly, bumping departed Freepres such as Okiereddust and Gecko is no longer possible.
3 posted on 10/13/2001 8:44:23 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Was that departed or deported?
4 posted on 10/13/2001 8:47:04 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The bump worked. Good articles, I agree with the high level point but think he gets a bit sloppy with some of the facts.

patent

5 posted on 10/13/2001 8:49:00 AM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
bump
6 posted on 10/13/2001 8:49:17 AM PDT by junebug54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Bump system seems to work.
Laissez Faire Books.
Second Renaissance Books.
Reason Foundation.
Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
7 posted on 10/13/2001 9:04:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I'm kinda behind. Is there a place to sign up for the *libertarian bump list?
8 posted on 10/13/2001 9:16:17 AM PDT by Storm Orphan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Storm Orphan
I'm surprised that you have'nt made one... ;-)
9 posted on 10/13/2001 9:21:26 AM PDT by L,TOWM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: annalex
PROPHETIC WRITINGS.

Bookmarked & BUMPED.

10 posted on 10/13/2001 9:21:39 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: annalex
This guy needs to read Baron von Clauswitz. He has no concept for the unintended consequences of pyrrhic victory, but then IMO, neither do you. I have no desire to kill a billion people, nor do I think it necessary, indeed, it is likely to be counterproductive.

I also think he misunderstands the ability of the government of Afghanistan to control bin Laden, because the situation is quite apparently the reverse; i.e., Bin Laden influences the Taleban more than they do him. Breeding hate can produce a fearful master.

11 posted on 10/13/2001 9:27:16 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Storm Orphan; Carry_Okie; all
libertarian bump list

No, it isn't. My understanding is that you don't "sign up" for the group lists. You just check them via a search "to:libertarians". I maintain a list of my own for these Pursuit of Liberty/Defense of Liberty series, and I bump people individually; among them I bump {libertarians}. I used to put {libertarians} in braces, but that practice is not supported by the new software. When I did the bump (with the icon) the software forced me to exclude {libertarians} and "ll&poh", apparently, becasue of the unusual characters. It also silently discarded all the dearly departed (deported) Freepers. A minute later (#3) it occurred to me to try "libertarians" without the braces and it worked.

If ll&poh still exists under a different name, and wants to stay on the list, let him contact me. "ll&poh" screen name no longer exists.

12 posted on 10/13/2001 9:37:57 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: annalex; L,TOWM
So many things are changing here I figured I'd missed something again. ;^)
13 posted on 10/13/2001 9:39:51 AM PDT by Storm Orphan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I disagree with Peikoff on one thing: I believe that the moderate Muslims are our potential allies and therefore an effort should be made to distinguish between the militants and the passives. For example, I believe that the humanitarian food drops were a good idea.

I also think that after the hostilities stop, we will have to install some occupational force there and oversee a transition toward a peaceful and representative government in every country involved. Although the concrete details will be different, the West will have to re-learn how to be a colonial empire. All this was discussed at some length in the previous article: The Contours of Victory.

14 posted on 10/13/2001 9:46:19 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: annalex
A particularly bad essay on this topic. Odd from this author.

Unfortunately Piekoff can't seem to make a coherent point here. He doesn't explain how the "West" came to own the oil in Arab countries. He rails against collectivism but had the audacity to talk about the "West's" ownership in oil.

Then he jumps from talking about the bad Arab dictators to talking about the Ayatollah in Iran some undisclosed number of years after the oil rights were ceded.

He's not doing a very good job. He's necessarily having to ignore whole portions of history that doesn't suit his purpose. Lies of omission.

15 posted on 10/13/2001 9:58:01 AM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Japan in 1941 had a living GOD named Hirohito. The Japanese people were not allowed to look on the living god that ruled them. Those under him told teh people that if they gave thier life in his service they had an instant ticket to heaven. Thus the kamikazi were pilots that flew a bomb with wings and an engine into the side of our ships. They got instant death and thought they were getting instant heaven.

We defeated Japan and rules the nation under military law fow only a few years. General McArthur ruled Japan with an iron had. He in effect dictated their constitution.

Hirohito was made to plege aliegence to General McArthur. The people were forced to look at him bowing down to McArthur. We took a waring nation and made it a peaceful nation in a few short years. The effects have lasted 50 years.

It took us just 3 years to change Japanese society after the war. We can do it again.

16 posted on 10/13/2001 10:00:19 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Japan is 90 million people in an area the size of Japan.

You are talking about 1-1.5 BILLION people scattered over 1/3 the land mass of the planet with another 2.5 BILLION people, armed with nuclear weapons, who won't be enamoured with the idea.

Fat chance.

17 posted on 10/13/2001 11:59:06 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
You are as incoherent as ever.
18 posted on 10/13/2001 12:02:23 PM PDT by Clinton's a rapist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Japan is 90 million people in an area the size of Japan.

Sorry, I meant to say:

Japan is 90 million people in an area the size of California.

19 posted on 10/13/2001 12:22:29 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: annalex
What happened to OkieRedDust and Gecko?
20 posted on 10/13/2001 12:29:02 PM PDT by The Right Stuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clinton's a rapist
What didn't you understand about what I said?
21 posted on 10/13/2001 12:43:31 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: annalex
Nice graphic on St. George at #2.

Raphael did (at least) two great st. George's:

One is at the Louvre; one at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence.

23 posted on 10/13/2001 1:21:04 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
First he rails against "Islamic Fundamentalists" and one wonders if this is who he's going to say we need to eliminate. But, no...he goes on to say it's the governments of Iran(Iran?) and Afghanistan.

Uh, maybe the paradox that is straining your tiny brain is resolved by the fact that Iran and Afghanistan have Islamic Fundamentalist governments?

24 posted on 10/13/2001 3:46:48 PM PDT by Clinton's a rapist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower ceded to the Arabs the West's property rights in oil—although that oil properly belonged to those in the West whose science and technology made its discovery and use possible.

I didn't know the "West" had any property rights in Arabian Oil, and how that happened. I need some referrence to the relevant treaties or contracts.

25 posted on 10/13/2001 5:00:30 PM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
No, he doesn't explain many things in these two short articles, which are focused not on the theory of property rights, and not on the history of Arab-Western relations, but on the proper policy today.

The question of claiming unclaimed property is very difficult, and it is central to any theory of property rights. I am fully aware of the need to systematize it, and in fact was preparing a theoretical article on this, that after 9/11 needed major reworking. We'll return to that if you keep yourself from getting banned :)))

Here is a short outline. Oil under someone else's desert is unclaimed property. The property right to oil go to the one with technology to extract it. The only way to argue otherwise is to say that the government claims the property just by the virtue of a national border, a dubious proposition.

26 posted on 10/13/2001 5:33:40 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator; Carry_Okie
General McArthur

Absolutely. The good general is the model to follow in this war. The numerical population argument doesn't stand because (1) we have the military technology that is in proportion to what militant Islam has is also an order of magnitude stronger; and (2) militant Islam is only a fraction of the Muslim world, that is lucky to control one country -- Afghanistan and one junkyard next to Jerusalem, which is far less that all these billions and billions Carry_Okie is talking about in #17.

27 posted on 10/13/2001 5:39:31 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Clinton was Wrong:

Humane treatment for Terrorists:

Cut heads off and sew them into pig bellies and send to the families.

28 posted on 10/13/2001 5:43:07 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Right Stuff
OkieRedDust and Gecko

Gecko got banned a long time ago, and Okiereddust about two months ago, for offenses related to perceived antisemitism and racism. I miss them, despite their misguided views. I should also admit that Okiereddust in particular had an influence on me by pointing out the profound role that national culture plays in any political philosophy.

29 posted on 10/13/2001 5:44:01 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Militant Islam is fairly well dispersed throughout the Muslim world. Any military technique sufficient to dominate them, that was conducted by or for the United States would produce a billion militant Islamics. Congratulations. You have just produced a recipe for murdering a billion people in World War III.
30 posted on 10/13/2001 5:51:57 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma
a fit of rage

Well, a certain amount of rage befits the events, no?

Peikoff's logic though is sound. An individual may commit an offense individually and then it is the job of the government that has jurisdiction to punish him. If the government doesn't, then what we have is a war on that government, which makes otherwise innocent individuals complicit in that government's misdeed. Afghanistan and Iran are the two governments that fall into that category. Other governments that I don't particularly like, for example, Syria and possibly PA, made sounds disassociating themselves from the thuggery. Thus, we can argue about Dr. Peikoff's two-nation list further, but he has a justification for presenting the list the way he did.

I am amazed that you followed my debate about imperialism and still didn't find my thoughts convincing. What can I do to elucidate?

31 posted on 10/13/2001 5:53:28 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples; Romulus
I love that one, perhaps because I am Russian. In particular, note the ease with which he slays the dragon. It is an afterthought, -- he is ahead as he is.

Romulus had a comment on another thread where I posted that icon, -- that it reminds us who the real enemy is.

32 posted on 10/13/2001 5:57:59 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: secretagent; SwimmingUpstream
I didn't know the "West" had any property rights in Arabian Oil,

I don't know about contracts. We can safely assume that some paperwork was filled in at the time. Under natural law, a discoverer should be able to claim rights when the object he discovers is otherwise unclaimed. SwimmingUpstream is going to disagree, so I am bumping him. I plan to discuss this difficult topic in a theoretical way at some calmer time.

33 posted on 10/13/2001 6:03:22 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Peikoff is such a fraud. He has all the same normal human reactions as the rest of us -- that I can understand and respect. But he has to clothe everything in his tired Randian rhetoric and dialectic, because his reputation and authority come from being the Objectivist pope. The Randian shell really doesn't correspond closely enough with the emotional core. Does Randian objectivism even apply to situations like this where one must subordinate one's individualism to the common cause and band together to fight? I think of Ayatollah Peikoff as another Woodrow Wilson committed to fighting war after war to bring about the victory of his concept of reason and morality, and pushed ever further from his unrealistic ideal by the needs of the war. One might have thought that making a dogma out of individualism would save us from meddlers like Peikoff, but the dogma demands implementers, theorists and theologians, which keeps Peikoff, the mad Mullah of rationalist objectivism in business.
34 posted on 10/13/2001 6:04:50 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
murdering a billion people in World War III.

It looks like World War III, correct. It won't be a murder though. Does it occur to you that our options are to win the war militarily, or, well, lose it?

You are right that it is in our interest to contain this war to the militant Islam while not attempting to annihilate or rule over the passive Islam. There is no sure way to do so; at some point an offer of partenrship to the peaceful Islam will turn into appeasement, and have harmful consequences. So far, the Republican administration is striking this difficult balance rather well.

35 posted on 10/13/2001 6:11:29 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: x
mad Mullah of rationalist objectivism

Objectivism, or at least libertarianism, teaches that governments exist to provide a violent response to initiated violence. Such were the events of 9/11. Dr. Peikoff is sticking to the libertarian principles. A mushy praise of individualism above other considerations may be applicable to libertarianism at times; but individualism does not define libertarianism, non-initiation of violence does.

36 posted on 10/13/2001 6:17:35 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: annalex; The Kitten; Askel5
That is why I stressed the need to identify and work with indigenous Muslim elements of each nation involved. The Japanese model is a poor one. In that case the opposition organized itself into a regular uniformed military. In this case (much as it was in Vietnam), the opponent is well hidden and dispersed within a sympathetic native population (including our own, which has its own sympathetic elements).

This is a political and religious war. We can fight parts of it militarily, but it must be won polititically and morally. We can and must use covert action to quietly eliminate the militant Islamic leadership. Anything else consolidates a sympathetic population into a global oppostion and will turn into a genocidal bloodbath.

Here are some concrete suggestions of what I mean:

In short, start acting like a nation interested in treating them like one. Develop our strengths and let them stew in their weaknesses until they figure it out. Start respecting their sovereignty, if for no other reason, to protect our own. Develop within their countries those individual leaders with respect for the rule of law, and murder ruthlessly and quietly in the dead of night any bastard who threatens to take his case against the US.
37 posted on 10/13/2001 6:49:12 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
You are one of the very few here with whom I agree almost completely. (WRT to Islamic terrorism, anyway!)

Get rid of the terrorists and let the Muslim world figure out how to solve its own problems. And one of them is going to be how to live with Israel.

38 posted on 10/13/2001 6:55:16 PM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Here is a short outline. Oil under someone else's desert is unclaimed property.

Balogney. I own the mineral and water rights to my property and I have no technological ability to drill for oil. Nobody may enter my property and drill for oil simply because they own the technology. That would be theft. What you and Piekoff are advocating is a justification for theft which has no basis in property rights but an imagined absence of property rights.

39 posted on 10/13/2001 7:08:08 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Coming around to my way of thinking yet? Is the oil pipeline the underlying motive for beginning WWIII?
40 posted on 10/13/2001 7:34:35 PM PDT by lakey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I don't know about contracts. We can safely assume that some paperwork was filled in at the time. Under natural law, a discoverer should be able to claim rights when the object he discovers is otherwise unclaimed.

The Saudi family already claimed all their land and any natural wealth discovered in the future in their land as the property of the state, the family, or all Saudi citizens, I'd bet. Perhaps they signed some profit sharing contracts with U.S. oil companies, but I doubt they signed away the rights to all oil as discovered in the future.

As to the rights of the discoverer, I think Demidog gives us a good starting point in that discussion:

I own the mineral and water rights to my property and I have no technological ability to drill for oil. Nobody may enter my property and drill for oil simply because they own the technology.

41 posted on 10/13/2001 8:52:12 PM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: x
You might want to read Ayn Rand's address to the 1974 graduating class of West Point to help clarify your understanding of the Objectivist position on the military, on foreign policy, and on the proper relationship of the individual to the polis. It is reprinted as the title essay in her collection, Philosophy: Who Needs It, available at a bookseller near you.
42 posted on 10/13/2001 8:59:49 PM PDT by Clinton's a rapist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Storm Orphan
I'm kinda behind. Is there a place to sign up for the *libertarian bump list?

No, but you can check it and the other lists here.

44 posted on 10/14/2001 5:41:49 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Here is a short outline. Oil under someone else's desert is unclaimed property. The property right to oil go to the one with technology to extract it. The only way to argue otherwise is to say that the government claims the property just by the virtue of a national border, a dubious proposition.

Wait a minute. Oil under someone's desert belongs to the person who owns the desert.

What you just said would mean that if there's oil under my house, the first person who has the ability to drill can claim it, and he now owns the oil. Owning oil implies the right to drill it, which would mean having a right to set up an oil rig on my land without my permission and perhaps even a right to demolish my house to make room for it. Surely you can't mean that.

45 posted on 10/14/2001 5:48:27 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Right Stuff
I should add to #29 that I do not "percieve" Okiereddust views as antisemitic or racist, because I do not detect in him an irrational and prejudicial antipathy to any group of people; when I characterized his views as "misguided" I was referring to the brand of communitarianism that he espouses.
46 posted on 10/14/2001 6:20:09 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I agree with your program almost entirely. I could probably pick out an item or two where I suspect a disagreement over the details, not worth going into at this point.

Our disagreement is that in my view the program in #37 is not enough to protect our lives and property at this point. Before we rebuild our foreign policy as per #37, we should occupy the countries that bred the terrorists or otherwise install governments there that can do our bidding on matters of security. Osama, Hezbollah and the like will not stop to hate us if we reform our charities or repeal H1B. Thus we need governments there that use sufficient force to deprive the terrorists of oxygen, while attractive to the passive Muslims. Such governments will not develop there organically, they have to be created top-down, a la General MacArthur.

47 posted on 10/14/2001 6:31:02 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
let the Muslim world figure out how to solve its own problems.

I am not willing to take the chances with the Muslim world figuring out a Lockean society and it would be criminal of our government to leave our safety to such a long chance.

48 posted on 10/14/2001 6:34:03 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: annalex; independentmind
I am not willing to take the chances with the Muslim world figuring out a Lockean society and it would be criminal of our government to leave our safety to such a long chance.

I am. They could form an absolute dictatorship under a monarchic despot, they could go totally socialist, they could read the US Constitution and do what it says just to shame us (now that would be novel), or they could commit mass suicide for all I care, just as long as they don't export the consequences beyond their borders.

49 posted on 10/14/2001 6:46:53 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Demidog; A.J.Armitage
The classical view is that a person can claim unclaimed property if he attaches labor to it. I would prefer to extend that a bit and allow the kind of claiming that occurs, for example, in a large real estate acquisition where the owner does not labor on his estate, but has means to hire others to exploit it; and I would also extend it to various untangible forms of property. But for the purposes of this discussion let us take the classical approach and see what kind of claiming is going on with different scenarios.

If the owner owns the land for farming, industrial or recreational use, characteristic of real estate ownership in the West, his use of the property will be disrupted by the arrival of oil drilling equipment and such. Thus the common law develops the concept of the real estate as a cone extending from the center of the earth through the boundary and into the outer space, which implies the ownership of the mineral deposits underneath.

When violations of the cone occur in a way that does not disrupt the established use of the land, the common law quickly relaxes the rules of tresspass. Since an airplane at cruising altitude does not interfere with any land use, air travel across property lines does not constitute a tresspass; and conversely, one cannot claim celestial objects by choosing a moment in time when they pass through one's real estate cone and are not claimed by an equally enterpising neighbor.

If oil is discovered under an Arab dwelling, then, of course, in equity the dweller claims the oil regardless of his technological abilities. Unable to exploit the find, he may be willing to sell his oil rights, but that is a different story.

A typical for the Middle East scenario is that oil is discovered in the desert. While a royalty, or a government of the country may have a technical claim on the desert, there is no natural law provision for such claim, because the oil exploration in the desert will not disrupt any activity there.

This is an interesting instance of property rights refracting differently across civilizations.

50 posted on 10/14/2001 6:55:42 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson