bugzysegal Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 In an anarchistic world, how would indigenous peoples seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more? Wouldn't these people be at a clear disadvantage when up against a wealthy business, even compared yo your average poor person?
Torero Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Interesting question. There's about 3.4% indigenous population here in the country, some of them still hunting with curare and pipes... It's hard to imagine "a[n utopian] anarchistic world" as it doesn't exist, but if negotiation and voluntarism are the ethic pillars of that "world" what stops the indigenous peoples from doing so? Someone taking their land by force would be a violation of the NAP and the dispute resolution organisations that would be in place in that "world" can solve that matter.
Will Torbald Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 In an anarchistic world, how would indigenous peoples seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more? Wouldn't these people be at a clear disadvantage when up against a wealthy business, even compared yo your average poor person? Specific dirt on the nail questions like this are a waste of time. The world is nowhere near close to an anarchist world to ponder such obscurities. 1 1
dsayers Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Specific dirt on the nail questions like this are a waste of time. The world is nowhere near close to an anarchist world to ponder such obscurities. It's a good point. They're usually put forth in the form of "I'll accept slavery is immoral once you explain to me how I'm going to get my cotton without them." They're often misleading too. This particular question is omitting a couple of key points. In a free society, wealth is accumulated by way of voluntary trade, which happens even in the presence of coercion as seen present day. The second being that living on a specific spot of land doesn't mean you own it.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 In an anarchistic world, how would indigenous peoples seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more? Wouldn't these people be at a clear disadvantage when up against a wealthy business, even compared yo your average poor person? Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror These are obsolete races. Such mindless, useless, and predatory peoples would have to finally face the judgment of evolution. 4
bugzysegal Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 Specific dirt on the nail questions like this are a waste of time. The world is nowhere near close to an anarchist world to ponder such obscurities. Fair enough. How do we empower these people now? After all, this currently is a problem. Sure, states are a great hindrance to indigenous peoples(as well as everyone else), but so are people who run businesses. If I had to do something about this in the U.S., I would seek first to add an exception to immanent domain for indigenous (after-all, they were aggressed against so that the current states might exist). Then you have the problem of how some very poor, and perhaps alternate language speaking, people would get representation. Perhaps self representation? This at least would allow indigenous to decide the price which they wan't to sell for, in stead of the state handing them "market value." It's a good point. They're usually put forth in the form of "I'll accept slavery is immoral once you explain to me how I'm going to get my cotton without them." They're often misleading too. This particular question is omitting a couple of key points. In a free society, wealth is accumulated by way of voluntary trade, which happens even in the presence of coercion as seen present day. The second being that living on a specific spot of land doesn't mean you own it. To the first part, I already accept anarchy, despite the problems that will be leftover. This wasn't framed like "if you solve this, then" that. The very reason I'm asking is because of the fact that this is a problem now, and the market solution doesn't seem straightforward to me. I'm also not saying a free-market solution doesn't exist. If there is a solution I can almost guarentee it is a market solution. Again, it's just not obvious to me. To the last bit, you're right of course. Homesteading requires you pour labor into the land, correct? Is there a bright line between subsisting and laboring? Also, is my conception of homesteading way off base? Also, it's because the answer doesn't seem obvious that I came to the place where people focus on political Libertarianism. Not trying to throw a wrench in the cogs. Interesting question. There's about 3.4% indigenous population here in the country, some of them still hunting with curare and pipes... It's hard to imagine "a[n utopian] anarchistic world" as it doesn't exist, but if negotiation and voluntarism are the ethic pillars of that "world" what stops the indigenous peoples from doing so? Someone taking their land by force would be a violation of the NAP and the dispute resolution organisations that would be in place in that "world" can solve that matter. That would definitely be an option. Would DRO's have sliding scales for their services(I really don't know the answer to this question)? I only ask because some indigenous or tribal peoples have little more than basic goods with which to trade. I find the possibility fascinating, because I can see it as a marketable feature. For instance, do you want the type of DRO protecting you that will pass-over the disenfranchised and poor? You could instead choose to invest your money in a DRO that looks out for any potential customer looking for protection for a fair bargain.
Torero Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 How do we empower these people now? After all, this currently is a problem. What a strange question? Empowering other people? Why not letting them empower themselves?
bugzysegal Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 What a strange question? Empowering other people? Why not letting them empower themselves? You're exactly right, the way a framed that statement was backwards. I only think that we may be better able to pressure states to abandon the laws that are using immanent domain against them in the first place. Still, even if the indigenous made a concerted effort to use some type of insurance to shield themselves from businesses encroaching on their homes, would the indigenous be at a great disadvantage when it comes to bargaining? Or I suppose more succinctly, would insurance companies offset the cost of doing business with people with less capital, by passing it on to the rest of the customer base? IF not do we chalk it up to social darwinism as a commenter above said?I think the trees are getting in the way of the forest I'm looking for lol. Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror These are obsolete races. Such mindless, useless, and predatory peoples would have to finally face the judgment of evolution. I don't identify at all with this sentiment. I find it callous, un-empathetic, and frankly a bit scary.
Torero Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I only think that we may be better able to pressure states to abandon the laws... "We" (does that include me, or who are you with?) may be better able to pressure states to abandon laws...? Which other state law in the last hundred years has been abandoned (so not rewritten!) due to pressure from people? On far more important issues?
Romulox Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 You're exactly right, the way a framed that statement was backwards. I only think that we may be better able to pressure states to abandon the laws that are using immanent domain against them in the first place. Still, even if the indigenous made a concerted effort to use some type of insurance to shield themselves from businesses encroaching on their homes, would the indigenous be at a great disadvantage when it comes to bargaining? Or I suppose more succinctly, would insurance companies offset the cost of doing business with people with less capital, by passing it on to the rest of the customer base? IF not do we chalk it up to social darwinism as a commenter above said?I think the trees are getting in the way of the forest I'm looking for lol. What do you think about DROs performing this type of work pro bono? It's quite common for lawyers to represent people in our society that may not have the resources available to pay the typical rates for little or no charge in order to boost their public image. The cost would certainly be passed on to the customers, but if the plight of indigenous peoples is a concern for a portion of the population, they would be willing to pay it to ensure less fortunate people are represented. I see no reason to believe that this phenomenon, which is quite common in today's society, wouldn't continue into a free society, especially when people are free from the illusion that the government will protect the rights of the indigenous populations.
bugzysegal Posted October 24, 2015 Author Posted October 24, 2015 "We" (does that include me, or who are you with?) may be better able to pressure states to abandon laws...? Which other state law in the last hundred years has been abandoned (so not rewritten!) due to pressure from people? On far more important issues? Well positive law get passed by progressives issuing affirmative action and all sorts of things. Also, Native Americans were granted sovereignty some time in the last century. That's a full relinquishing of authority. Granted it took massive pressure from the public...but perhaps similar political movements would be effective. I'm spitballing. Also, I'm not sure the state screwing over a small segment of the population is less egregious, but it has more potential for remedy if the reservation status of Native Americans is anything to judge by.Everybody is at the mercy of the state, but something about coercion of the people least able to do anything about it (in terms of resources) strums my heart strings. Also, it's the type of problem globalist bring up to argue for international regulations to fight back "evil business." If a solution is on the table that rolls back government instead, awesome. What do you think about DROs performing this type of work pro bono? It's quite common for lawyers to represent people in our society that may not have the resources available to pay the typical rates for little or no charge in order to boost their public image. The cost would certainly be passed on to the customers, but if the plight of indigenous peoples is a concern for a portion of the population, they would be willing to pay it to ensure less fortunate people are represented. I see no reason to believe that this phenomenon, which is quite common in today's society, wouldn't continue into a free society, especially when people are free from the illusion that the government will protect the rights of the indigenous populations. That is quite reasonable. I suppose a solution that could be implemented now, would be to raise awareness. I want to go into international non-profit law to address problems just like these. (obviously I don't want to solve these problems through the initiation of force or positive law).
Torero Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Well positive law get passed by progressives issuing affirmative action and all sorts of things. Also, Native Americans were granted sovereignty some time in the last century. That's a full relinquishing of authority. Granted it took massive pressure from the public...but perhaps similar political movements would be effective. I'm spitballing. Also, I'm not sure the state screwing over a small segment of the population is less egregious, but it has more potential for remedy if the reservation status of Native Americans is anything to judge by.Everybody is at the mercy of the state, but something about coercion of the people least able to do anything about it (in terms of resources) strums my heart strings. Also, it's the type of problem globalist bring up to argue for international regulations to fight back "evil business." If a solution is on the table that rolls back government instead, awesome. So in the past hundred years we have some reserves where people can live but still pay taxes, still by passport "stand behind" bombing innocent civilians far far away, still are part of the "United" States of America? That's the argument for "Yeah, statism is the best possible solution"? Then I fear we have a long Route 66 to walk, my friend... If there's any good in the world, it's inside individual innovative minds. Those are hindered, not helped by statism. Indigenous peoples may well be protected in their lifestyle in a free society. I certainly would donate to that. Not now, knowing it falls in the hands of people who have nothing to do with preserving the original beauties of this marvellous planet.
MagnumPI Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Who cares? They're idiots. Once allowed, someone smart would trick them into giving away millions of acres for a few shiny rocks or something. Civilization doesn't really protect stupidity. The state does, but even now you can still go to Vegas and play slots, have your palm read and purchase computer fans that fit inside your car's air intake tube. Anarchy would force them to evolve or die. With any luck, that is. I suppose some misguided, paternalistic voyeurs might provide a reservation sanctuary for them. 1 2
bugzysegal Posted October 24, 2015 Author Posted October 24, 2015 So in the past hundred years we have some reserves where people can live but still pay taxes, still by passport "stand behind" bombing innocent civilians far far away, still are part of the "United" States of America? That's the argument for "Yeah, statism is the best possible solution"? Then I fear we have a long Route 66 to walk, my friend... If there's any good in the world, it's inside individual innovative minds. Those are hindered, not helped by statism. Indigenous peoples may well be protected in their lifestyle in a free society. I certainly would donate to that. Not now, knowing it falls in the hands of people who have nothing to do with preserving the original beauties of this marvellous planet. I actually thought, (up until I googled it two seconds ago) that they had total sovereignty. I didn't realize they were still bound by US Federal law. Again, I don't want to expand the state at all. I'd rather use legal mechanisms to roll back state authority, which might grant some of the disenfranchised the freedom we all deserve. The only good law is a repeal.
bugzysegal Posted October 24, 2015 Author Posted October 24, 2015 Who cares? They're idiots. Once allowed, someone smart would trick them into giving away millions of acres for a few shiny rocks or something. Civilization doesn't really protect stupidity. The state does, but even now you can still go to Vegas and play slots, have your palm read and purchase computer fans that fit inside your car's air intake tube. Anarchy would force them to evolve or die. With any luck, that is. I suppose some misguided, paternalistic voyeurs might provide a reservation sanctuary for them. IQ is ubiquitous, as is the accident of birth. Be happy you weren't born among them.
MagnumPI Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 IQ is ubiquitous, as is the accident of birth. Be happy you weren't born among them. I thought ignorance is bliss? Civilization ain't all puppies and rainbows. But it's the price we pay for advancement of the species. I don't reserve any sympathy for, nor waste any resources on, a human too lazy to invent a wheel to offset the weight of carrying a load but has plenty of time to stick cylindrical rocks through their nose or put round plates in their lower lip. They would be deemed mentally retarded by any culture civilized enough to wash their hands after scratching their ass. This is not something to endorse, subsidize or encourage. 1 2
Torero Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Who cares? They're idiots. What stops you from putting on a skirt of leaves, hopping through the jungle and hunting animals with frog poison, otherwise you starve to death? You think they're idiots? How long do you survive without electricity? They did it for some... 10.000 years? And counting... 1 1
MagnumPI Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 What stops you from putting on a skirt of leaves, hopping through the jungle and hunting animals with frog poison, otherwise you starve to death? You think they're idiots? How long do you survive without electricity? They did it for some... 10.000 years? And counting... Wait, why the hell would I do that? Are you calling me a retard? So have common garden snails. Worship them if you really want to, I'm busy automating million dollar equipment and piloting vehicles faster in first gear than any human has ever run... 1
Torero Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Wait, why the hell would I do that? Are you calling me a retard? So have common garden snails. Worship them if you really want to, I'm busy automating million dollar equipment and piloting vehicles faster in first gear than any human has ever run... Imagine the electricity runs out. Like big time. For weeks. You would stress a little. I would too. They just live on their happy lives. That even a thought experiment failed to show it (no, you don't have to jump in Alice's hole for real), says enough. Pity. 1 1
MagnumPI Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Imagine the electricity runs out. Like big time. For weeks. You would stress a little. I would too. They just live on their happy lives. That even a thought experiment failed to show it (no, you don't have to jump in Alice's hole for real), says enough. Pity. Imagine nothing. I've been camping. And hunting, fishing, foraging. Your condescending, snotnosed attitude has run its course. If you have something to say, say it. I don't mince words, I would appreciate the same in return.
Torero Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Imagine nothing. I've been camping. And hunting, fishing, foraging. Your condescending, snotnosed attitude has run its course. If you have something to say, say it. I don't mince words, I would appreciate the same in return. Magnum, if my memory is right, you were the one who had something to say, namely: Who cares? They're idiots. Why are they "idiots", Magnum? Because they do not automate million dollar equipment (you surely didn't count on that gold vein, did you?)? So if "automating million dollar equipment" is the ultimate sign of non-idiocy most people in the world and on FDR included would be idiots. Is that truly your standard for (non-)idiocy? 2 2
MagnumPI Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Magnum, if my memory is right, you were the one who had something to say, namely: Why are they "idiots", Magnum? Because they do not shift millions from one place to the other? So if "shifting millions from one place to the other" is the ultimate sign of non-idiocy most people in the world and on FDR included would be idiots. Is that truly your standard for (non-)idiocy? First: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot?s=t Start there. And you have these quotes... I don't recall saying anything about shifting. And I'm blocking you so, respond if you want but it won't be to me. 1
Torero Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 First: Start there. Happy Thanksgiving to you too, man. And I'm blocking you so, respond if you want but it won't be to me. Is this a threat or a relief? 1 2
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Who cares? They're idiots. Once allowed, someone smart would trick them into giving away millions of acres for a few shiny rocks or something. Civilization doesn't really protect stupidity. The state does, but even now you can still go to Vegas and play slots, have your palm read and purchase computer fans that fit inside your car's air intake tube. Anarchy would force them to evolve or die. With any luck, that is. I suppose some misguided, paternalistic voyeurs might provide a reservation sanctuary for them. I care and they're not idiots. Remember, to some jerk in a far future civilization you are a primitive. I thought ignorance is bliss? Civilization ain't all puppies and rainbows. But it's the price we pay for advancement of the species. Why should I care about the advancement of a collectivist concept? There is no "the species". There are only individuals. 1
Very Ape Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Europeans are indigenous to Europe. That's right - white people actually came from somewhere and have their own European cultures which are distinct and various. Now we see the massive Muslim migration out of the war torn Middle East (thank you neoconservatives and liberal faux "humanitarians") and where do they all wish to migrate? Why the wealthiest, hardest working, most productive, European countries with the most generous welfare. Hard working, sincere, ingenuitive, trade oriented and peaceful migrants are what you attract without a generous welfare state. People can't just invade because it's not practical nor profitable to do so. If you have nothing to offer, you will starve. Likewise I would offer that without the welfare state Europeans themselves would be much more likely to defend their homelands from invasion knowing full well what it takes to survive there year round and perhaps even a sense of pride about their people and culture which seems to be lacking now. I submit to you that the same principles would hold elsewhere in modern times. Invasions are costly and only if you have vastly superior weaponry or if the place you are invading has foolishly accepted you and everyone like you as guests they are willing to pay for does it makes sense to "invade" anyone anywhere. I think people will figure this out quickly in am anarchist world - a few may try but they are likely to fail and set an example for others in doing so. 1
bugzysegal Posted October 24, 2015 Author Posted October 24, 2015 They can buy the land. I agree. Would they qualify as homesteaders in some cases? IF that's the case and they own the land, they could sell it, if they wanted to, for as large a sum as they liked. I think the state, in many cases, steps in and declares "eminent domain", gives them no choice because it's for the "greater good", and throws what they think is market value at the victims.
bugzysegal Posted October 24, 2015 Author Posted October 24, 2015 I care and they're not idiots. Remember, to some jerk in a far future civilization you are a primitive. Why should I care about the advancement of a collectivist concept? There is no "the species". There are only individuals. Also, it's nice to see this. I didn't think this was going to be the divisive part of the issue honestly. I thought ignorance is bliss? Civilization ain't all puppies and rainbows. But it's the price we pay for advancement of the species. I don't reserve any sympathy for, nor waste any resources on, a human too lazy to invent a wheel to offset the weight of carrying a load but has plenty of time to stick cylindrical rocks through their nose or put round plates in their lower lip. They would be deemed mentally retarded by any culture civilized enough to wash their hands after scratching their ass. This is not something to endorse, subsidize or encourage. You're holding current genreations responsible for the mistakes of past generations, merely becuse they share genetics. Collective responsibility is antithetical to Libertarianism is it not? Also, just to be clear, I'm under no delusion that my actions as a lawyer will somehow solve the problem of the state. Such a thing can only be accomplished through spreading philosophy into the zeitgeist. However, helping individuals in accordance with Libertarian principles, might be something I am good at and is something that I desire very much. 1
MagnumPI Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 I care and they're not idiots. Remember, to some jerk in a far future civilization you are a primitive. Why should I care about the advancement of a collectivist concept? There is no "the species". There are only individuals. Great. And if that "jerk" comes here, out negotiates me, and I end up shirtless, more power to him. And if your definition of idiot doesn't include people with IQ's between 50 and 70 running around in their underwear and poking rocks through their genitals, congratulations. Mine does. Species, as a word, has a definition. Don't know where you're going with that. But since you wandered into whatever this is, there are dozens of articles chronicling the dwindling populations of these tribes due to renunciation of membership and joining(what apparently doesn't exist) civilization and more advanced societies. So, I don't know. Whatever. I don't see the point you're trying to make, but that's the best I can do to answer your question. Individuals coming together create a civilization. You're holding current genreations responsible for the mistakes of past generations, merely becuse they share genetics. Collective responsibility is antithetical to Libertarianism is it not? Also, just to be clear, I'm under no delusion that my actions as a lawyer will somehow solve the problem of the state. Such a thing can only be accomplished through spreading philosophy into the zeitgeist. However, helping individuals in accordance with Libertarian principles, might be something I am good at and is something that I desire very much. How so...? I'm holding the individual responsible for their current decisions. You're the one playing cop-out by injecting this genetic determinism. Mommy-coddling them removes their accountability and agency, if you want to talk about antithetical to libertarianism. I don't care about their genetics. If Donald Trump or Ted Turner approach a tribe and say you each get 20 iphones for this jungle, they take it, then sucks to be them. But it's a choice they made, out of ignorance, just as someone who buys the TrueCoat at the dealership or keeps playing the same number on the lotto for 16 years. They don't get a pass because they haven't advanced in thousands of years. Listen to country songs. A good chunk of them are about what mommy or daddy did, telling their kid not to. This is an important lesson, if the tribes haven't bothered to learn it, why would I bother worrying about it? Oh, they have to put clothes on and shower?!?! Oh, the humanity. I guess they could join the Aborigines in the desert that nobody wants anything to do with. And maybe it's the same with the jungle people. Maybe they just end up on land nobody wants. And something like that would happen, if not for the imaginary lines around said jungle(see: the United States of America). 1 1
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 What do you think about DROs performing this type of work pro bono? It's quite common for lawyers to represent people in our society that may not have the resources available to pay the typical rates for little or no charge in order to boost their public image. The cost would certainly be passed on to the customers, but if the plight of indigenous peoples is a concern for a portion of the population, they would be willing to pay it to ensure less fortunate people are represented. I see no reason to believe that this phenomenon, which is quite common in today's society, wouldn't continue into a free society, especially when people are free from the illusion that the government will protect the rights of the indigenous populations. The Rich Hate, Despise, and Fear All Other White People, The American government, as the British did before independence, protected Indians against the will of the people. The Rainbow cult's charge about broken treaties only refers to the illegitimate ones imposed on the White pioneers against their will, leaving them at the mercy of predatory savages. Another betrayal of majoritarian democracy was that the plutocrats who own the federal government were too cheap to fund a standing army. Thousands of settlers were slaughtered because they were isolated with only puny weapons to protect themselves from that existential threat. The scribblings of Madison and the other lawyers owned by the 1%, preaching scare stories with some made-up history about the danger of a standing army was just a cover for selfish refusal of the kleptocrats to pay the taxes needed to defend their fellow citizens.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Happy Thanksgiving to you too, man. Is this a threat or a relief? Belittle Big Man As usual, the biased Rainbow cult doesn't give the whole story. After the Indians gained the Pilgrims' trust, they started stealing, kidnapping, and scalping. Multiculties at a campfire, chanting warm and fuzzy songs of Big Brotherhood. The marshmallows are white.
MagnumPI Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 It's very simple. You can set up a cage around their land, and patrol it with security(you know, treat them like animals) or interact with them. And give them diseases and kill them all. Or they integrate and become just "people". And then if they want their land, they can hang on to it or sell it as they see fit but the huge problem is homesteading. If it's just a mud hut and some torch poles, then how much land can they really claim right to? (Especially as individuals, now. The tribe claims the whole jungle. But any one person? Hmmm...) It's like the Native American argument. More imaginary lines on a map that someone makes up and says they inhabited all this. Doesn't work like that. You can have all the land you can keep. You can't point your finger and say this is all mine! Unless you're a government. And if these tribes are doing that, I hope they go extinct. Look at the Papua New Guinea stories that come out often. One recently, they held a witch trial and used the fact the guy still had his heart as evidence that these 4 women stole his heart... and put it back. But those indigenous peoples have decided to wear cotton, so we just call them "people". And it's OK to call those savages, savages. But run around in tree branches and eat bugs? Oh, they need to be protected and preserved and world's treasures. No, they're the same people, and there's nothing beautiful about rounding them up in zoos or giving them deadly flu. People stay away because they're scary and dangerous. That's their best defense. The most compassionate thing to do is allow them access to medical care when they do come in contact with everyone else. And assign them responsibility for their (in)actions. Or they'll never make it. 1
bugzysegal Posted October 24, 2015 Author Posted October 24, 2015 How so...? I'm holding the individual responsible for their current decisions. You're the one playing cop-out by injecting this genetic determinism. Mommy-coddling them removes their accountability and agency, if you want to talk about antithetical to libertarianism. I'm curious, do you think you would have turned out a Libertarian with no sympathy for indigenous people, had you been born among them? Bad philosophy is dangerous, precisely because it threatens the thinking and actions of future generations. Don't think that highly intelligent people can't adopt terrible philosophy. Hell, the entire world was beating their children until recently(where now slightly more people parent peacefully). The whole idea as that they don't have any bargaining power as it stands, because of immanent domain. At least they could hold developers up for millions, or even yet say "no." As it stands they don't have that ability so long as some developer can convince a panel of judges or one judge in some cases that it is in the "public interest." Also, they have little resources to take action if they are agressed against by predatory businesses. What would stop someone for drafting a contract, stating that the signee releases all right to title, in exchange for 20 iPhones, then that person poses as a representative of the state and communicates through translator that if the indigenous people want to remain on their land, they must sign. You could easily defraud a whole group of people who don't have an ability to fight back. 1
MagnumPI Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 I'm curious, do you think you would have turned out a Libertarian with no sympathy for indigenous people, had you been born among them? Bad philosophy is dangerous, precisely because it threatens the thinking and actions of future generations. Don't think that highly intelligent people can't adopt terrible philosophy. Hell, the entire world was beating their children until recently(where now slightly more people parent peacefully). The whole idea [is] that they don't have any bargaining power as it stands, because of immanent domain. At least they could hold developers up for millions, or even yet say "no." As it stands they don't have that ability so long as some developer can convince a panel of judges or one judge in some cases that it is in the "public interest." Also, they have little resources to take action if they are agressed against by predatory businesses. What would stop someone from drafting a contract, stating that the signee releases all right to title, in exchange for 20 iPhones. Then that person poses as a representative of the state and communicates through translator that if the indigenous people want to remain on their land, they must sign. You could easily defraud a whole group of people who don't have an ability to fight back. Last part first. If the indigenous choose not to interact with civilization, they don't know the difference between the state or anyone else. Market forces come into play regarding businesses that operate this way. The people most closely invested would be responsible for providing legal representation and watching the court actions regarding such issues as much as they would their neighbors or themselves. Again, this involves either integrating the people into society or outright removing their agency. I don't see why fraud against ignorant people is any more or less abhorrent than fraud against anyone else, and would be handled the same way in any case. But I assign personal responsibility to everyone pretty much equally. If fraud can be proven, in say a private arbitration court, it would only require proof that it happened for any interested party to present their case against the perpetrator. The victim wouldn't necessarily have to be involved in the case, beyond showing how they were damaged. The burden of proof still, as it should, lies on those presenting the case. Now, if it is the case they're genetically inferior, then will you treat them as inferior? Or do I have to still pretend they should be treated like equals AND coddle them? I won't do both. The first question is irrelevant. And it's presumptuous. Had I been born to them, I wouldn't be doing much thinking at all. I'd eat, sleep, do stupid shit, get high on frogs and have sex. I have sympathy for them. Just not for their lack of advancement or involvement in the world all around them. You can Theodore Kaczynski if you want, but don't expect a handout when you're face to face with reality. Because they know about the communities surrounding them, and choose their lives. The uncontacted tribes get a pass initially, but if it's so important to you(or whomever), set up an expedition to find and teach them about the world, educate, etc, etc. It's not anyone's responsibility to cater to them. However, once you do that, they won't be what they are. If you want to treat them as trinkets, be honest about it. If you want to treat them like people, then start treating them like people. Predators are out there. I don't excuse getting drunk and passing out in an alleyway in downtown Chicago as an honest oversight and I don't excuse dancing around a campfire instead of thinking as noble and fascinating. It's just careless.
Recommended Posts