This Land Was Stolen from Native Americans

This actually sounds as if you're agreeing with me. More on that in a minute, because I disagree with the next bit --

So in terms of European property concepts, your Indian was making a claim to some rights for using the land in question, and in allowing the Europeans to also use the land, in fact underlined his position as owner and arbiter of the land's use.

However, as I said, I think we're basically in agreement that this bit of history destroys any a priori concept of property rights, which so many others here are fond of claiming as the basis for libertarian morals. I've been saying that these rights have not and cannot be heeded; you're saying that they didn't have to be heeded because they did not exist before someone artifically introduces them by convention, allowing Indians to live without before Europeans arrive. In either interpretation, there's no universal concept of property that precedes arbitrary and historically malleable human convention.

There was definitely a sense of tribal land, it was only at the individual level that it broke down.

It's like communism in the Soviet Union - individuals didn't own things, but you better not be from the wrong tribe on the wrong side of a river. Just trade tribe for Germans.

The Indians knew they were being swindled. They just lacked the force, technology and organization to stop it.

But then, so did Rome when the barbarians came.

No, I'd take the Indian's statement to mean "I don't own this land, you are therefore free to take it." Nevertheless, I agree with what you say bellow.

Considering that just about every European ship was greeted with topless native girls, tobacco, and BBQ, you really have to fault the natives for being too hospitable.

Which is totally inconsistent. The only consistent viewpoint with that would be to make the inheritance optionally subject to taxes for that generation, and then untouchable afterward. But since it's already been taxed as income, it really is a Death Tax to tax it as inheritance.

There is in this sentence so much so very wrong and so very revealed about your disgusting mindset.

And you wonder why Americans guard our gun rights so jealously.

MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!

Go ahead. Explain why you, and not your neighbour, should benefit from capital your father stole from his father.

Which neighbor?

Any neighbour.

Let's start with the monarchies. Then we can talk about the rest.

My father stole capital from his father?

Feel free to answer for him.

Yes, I must hear more about this theft, especially as it regards these so called neighbors.

Am I supposed to sell everything my grandfather ever gave me after he dies and redistribute the proceeds among my neighbors? :flow2:

Never in this thread have words been written that more accurately reflect the philosophical consequences of this discussion. Well said. This was, indeed, what struck me as well a few days ago in view of the defense of libertarianism that has occurred over the course of the last several weeks. Libertarianism is essentially dependent on force, not right. It is, as I've said, merely a form of feudalism.

With the knowledge of what actually underlies the claims of right by which territory is occupied, the essential element of libertarianism is made all the clearer: Force, and nothing more, and nothing less.

^ That tells me all I need to know re:it

Spock, explain.

Aren't your neighbors also fellow thieves? Aren't you just spreading around the benefit of immorality?

But what tasks me is, how does that relate to imposing a 100 percent inheritance tax, as Packard supports?

Is each generation of a monarchy taxed again for their familial wealth...including back taxes? :flow2:

And how does that fit into the circle jerk of perpetual, unagreed to debt that these people believe in?

In fact, how is that concept any different from the myth of Original Sin?

So we were cast from the Garden, only to steal it back!

But Adam and Eve didn't have any neighbors

How can one believe in debt when one doesn't even believe in property at all?

Indeed. Which is why abandoning property rights is clearly Europe's surest way of repudiating everything they've stolen from the rest of the globe.

You can't owe if there's no such thing as owe

Why does debt only have to be from monetary or property only?

If you're going to design a scenario with one "immediately affected" generation, and one generation following that genaration('s death or whatever delay), then yes, obviously someone's (great grand)father stole from someone's (great grand)father. So go ahead and answer the question.

Which monarchies?

I'm not interested in your poorly drawn hypotheticals.

You specifically said "If you'll also limit inheritance in that way, that would be a great system." [emphasis mine]

That is what I find so very disturbing and disgusting about your mindset.

I want to know why you think you or the government has such a rightful power, and what proof you have that my grandfather stole anything?

Any, past or present.

You know...same answer as you gave about the neighbors

Considering Europe's legacy of past plunder and present continued possession, that's high irony

Going back to the original post, what concerns me isn't whether or not it was right for Whitey to take from the peace-loving, weed-smoking, never knew what property was, psuedo-hippie Injuns. What concerns me is the Mexican reconquista attitudes expressed by many of the "undocumented workers". I spent the weekend in L.A. and read quite a bit of local materials and was shocked by the sheer number of people expressing the idea that if they can't take back the Southwest by force, they can just show up and in effect outpopulate the Americans over time until Santa Ana's folly is reversed. It's really quite frightening to think that these people are already here and that many pro-immigration Americans don't see that and would make it easier for the Mexicans to not only get here, but stay here.