Posted on 12/02/2001 5:30:29 PM PST by annalex
I doubt that we'll resolve this here. The right to property doesn't exist in a vacuum. Property rights are a concept. When a society develops and applies that concept, it prospers. When a society lacks that concept (e.g., the North American indians), it is at a serious disadvantage if it finds itself in competition with a society which is advanced enough to have property rights.
In principle, the concept of property rights could have applied to the indians too, but they preferred to live in their tribal societies.
It is true that bin Laden is not a head of state and cannot declare wars; his attack on us from behind the authority of the Taliban is one of his many crimes. His jihad, however, won't become a just war even if declared by a legitimate head of state.
our leaders have not declared a constitutional war.
It is wrong that they didn't, since a declaration of war would be an important formality in shaping our domestic policy on a wartime basis. For example, the military tribunals that Bush wants to set up to try non-citizens suspected of terrorism are on shaky legal grounds because of that. But we owe no contitutional formalities to the Taliban, and they were notified of our hostile intentions in advance. Thus the justice of our actions there does not hinge on the fact that the Congress didn't declare a war.
The U.S. is not a collective.
Since there are at least two U.S. citizens, it is.
It isn't even remotely libertarian to promote Empire.
Why?
My guess would be the same as yours, that the Founding Fathers were keenly aware of the cultural foundation of property, -- they had to be, given the Indian tribes and the slavery.
I am not advocating the American indian system. It seems to me, though, that your statement is the same as mine. You say the indian way put them at "serious disadvantage." I agree. But that disadvantage was the barrel of a gun.
In principle, the concept of property rights could have applied to the indians too, but they preferred to live in their tribal societies.
See, maybe I am naive, or mistaken, or both, but I thought that the right to property was one of Locke's natural rights. I thought it was self-evident. I am unable to determine how it is that such a right can be denied to a whole race, simply because there system is different. I understand it practically. They took the land from the indians, who were not sophisticated enough, legally or militarily, to hold on to it. Heck, the indians out in California in the early 19th century could hardly feed themselves. I understand practically how it happened. I am just thinking out loud about the philospohical rationale. Something that comes to mind is a bit I read by Jaffa, where he talks about how a certain "adult consciousness" is required to recognize natural rights. I don't know if that is the best term, but perhaps it points towards the answer to my musings.
Unless that civilization happens to be Marxist :-)
Don't mind my musings. It helps me to think (I think). You could just as correctly say when governments clash, right? As was the case in the Cold War. Not exactly two "civilizations", but merely two governments. As Patrick Henry (the freeper) said, property is a concept, therefore, it exists through law, which is an instrument of government, yes?
So, in summation, property is not a natural right, as is, say, self-defense. Right?
Thus it cannot declare war according to you.
Unless the law of nature precludes killing for honor or entertainment. Also, you seem to say that individuals should be free to toss away their lives, but
inaction next to a helpless person whose life is in an immediate peril is no different in its immediate effect from homicide if help can arrive only from the inactor. Provided that the inactor can render help without injury to himself, his inaction is unrightful, and so an act of help becomes a duty.
here you say that to refrain from helping someone in distress is criminal. I assume, then, that "helpless" assumes "not suicidal?"
I don't know.... My children learned the word word, "MINE!" at a very early age. They understood the concept, and they wanted it enforced with a vengance! (except of course when they wanted something that happened to belong to one of their siblings.
Cordially,
The difference is that both the farming [read: Islamic] civilization and the foraging [read: American] civilization are complete and self-sufficient systems of property [read: religious] rights. No deal exists that would enable them to coexist and maintain their full sets of property rights. The farmers will have to become foragers, or the Indians will have to become farmers, or else the Indians have to become cocooned in what to the farming world looks like another ranch: a reservation.
Thus it is incorrect to say that property rights exist on the foundation of non-violent cooperation. They do that only within the confines of some civilizations. In other civilizations, property rights are something that is determined in a fight.
Do you think it would be in error to parallel the property rights of the Indians/farmers as argued with the right to freely practice religion between American/al-Qaeda? That is, if we "agree on rules" and duke it out, so long as we play by them the al-Qaeda are justified in defending their culture from "disruption?"
No, I wouldn't say that. If two nations, albeit governed by different governments, have compatible systems of rights, then they develop a common system of property rights without initiating force. They may resort to a "gentlemen's war" on occasion as part of competitive acquisition of property, but that violence would be secondary to a contractual arrangment, like a boxing match.
If two civilizations have mutually exclusive systems of rights, as, in the Cold War, Western classical system of individual rights versus the communist rights as grants of permission from a central authority, then they cannot coexist without violence and any property dispute between them would often have to resort to force.
Yup. Suicide, although sinful, is generally a right.
Absolutely -- they can, for example, send us Muslim missionaries (and in fact they do) or ask us to keep our religion completely out, as the Saudis do, -- and the same goes for any other grievance real or imaginary that the militant Islam has voiced. If they don't like American bases in Saudi Arabia they can get the Saudi government to ask us to leave, or they can get Canada ask them to come and set up a training camp in Nova Scotia, whatever. Arafat could demonstrate statesmanship given so many opportunites he was given by the West, and negotiate his way to Palestinian statehood. Those agreed upon rules are internationally recognized norms of conflict resolution, but the militant Islamic civilization organically cannot abide by them and retain its identity.
I think you showed that in your post: when the effort necessary to build up a purely defensive but effective posture outweighs the harm of the first strike, the first strike becomes rightful. Let us reduce this to monetary costs for clarity and consider this scenario. A neighbor has a pet wolf that threatens my sheep. In absence of a legal recourse, I can build a fence at the cost of $1,000 and stay wholly defensive, or I can preemptively shoot the wolf. It appears that although the neighbor never actually looses the wolf on my sheep, the mere threat that he would cost me $1,000. If I shoot the wolf, the neighbor is out $100 that he paid for the wolf in a pet store. That is, if I shoot the wolf, I am whole and the neighbor is out the $100 that he spent on threatening me.
Now imagine the wolf cost $3,000 and I shoot him. My neighbor then says: "You were entitled to $1,000 from me, because that is what makes you whole by means of a fence. But you were not entitled to the remaining $2,000 that you destroyed. My wolf possession was 1/3 unrightful and 2/3 rightful. You deprived me of my rightful 2/3 wolf".
If individual rights were violated then the victim can empower his government and remedy the violation, just like he can do it directly. The violator cannot empower anything because he doesn't have the right to resist his just punishment.
"Sovereignty" is a concept invented by governments to muddle this simple truth and pretend a government is something more than an agent of individuals.
The point of my original reply concerning pre-emptive strikes was to assist me in a theoretical argument with Libertarian Party members. When the idea of a pre-emptive strike is introduced it leaves areas of gray; most Libertarians like everything in black and white. Those that adhere to a basic libertarian ideology are generally open to pre-emptive strikes but Libertarians that have taken the party pledge generally reject the idea. Maybe the only way to deal with Libertarians is to get them out of a theoretical world and into a real world, where decisions are not as simple and clear as the difference between black and white.
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.