[EastCoastAmerican]

Ayn Rand once mentioned that US military action against the Native Americans was justified because Western civilization would make better use of the land's resources, and that the Natives had no "rights" to live in a technologically primitive existence.

I've mentioned this before in another thread, but this instance did not get discussion. I see this as in contradiction to Objectivist ideology: military action as carried out by a government is a violation of the Natives' rights to live as they wished, and Objectivism encourages people to seek out their rational self-interest. It could be argued that the rejection of Western civilization was in the Natives' best interests, as multiple instances of prior contact and attempts at assimilation ended poorly for them.

Additionally, she encourages the idea that people who respect individual rights and private property don't have to extend these "rights" to others who don't believe in them. By that logic, the individualists betray their own principles by initiating force and coercion against others. This logic can easily be turned into justification for tyranny: "these guys hate freedom, so we don't need to give them a trial or due process!"

Here's the quote. Due to the poor sound quality of the original transcript, the quote is not exact but intended to convey the gist of her argument.

[Nunt]

If she ever said that, then she was wrong.

I believe Rand made a lot of good points, but I don't see the need in examining whether I agree with every single statement made by her.

[mum]

Yep, she was wrong.
It violates the NAP.

I'm sure negotiation would have led to a far better outcome overall

[mikema63]

Lady was weird no doubt.

As a side note the Cherokee nation was actually modern when the US declared them non-soverign and began the trail of tears. A deep crime commuted by Andrew Jackson and his successor.

[Rich]

America was founded on theft, murder and terror. America in its essence was absolutely no different to Nazism. The particulars of course are very different. The most important difference between the Nazis and the European American settlers is that the Indians didn't write many diary's. There's no native American Anne Frank. America came out of victory. The defeat of France in the seven years war meant that the huge centralised war machine that was the British empire was no longer required for the Drang Nach Westen. The Americans got angry because they were being asked to pay for troops who were protecting the natives rather than genociding them. The Nazis were born out of defeat. To regain the lands lost in WWI let alone to expand further needed more than spouting pious drivel about liberty. When the Nazis launched their war against the Soviet union to full fill their manifest destiny and populate the Ukraine with a sturdy Germanic yeomanry, their government was not big enough, they had not spent enough on their military. The Germanic (Nazi) dream was exactly the same as the American dream, its just that the circumstances of implementation were different.

Libertarianism always looks to the United States as the nearest thing to actually existing Libertarianism. Without the genocide of the Native Americans there would be no America. America is founded on the complete negation of the non aggression principle. To disapprove of force against the Native Americans is to disapprove of America. I accept that some people genuinely believe in Libertariansim. However in America most of its fellow travellers will always be racist opportunists who will happily support, fugitive slave acts, bridge to no wheres, local government defence contracts and all the trappings of big government, but just object to programmes that go or are at least believed to go disproportionately to Black people and Latinos.

[Eran]

Libertarianism always looks to the United States as the nearest thing to actually existing Libertarianism. Without the genocide of the Native Americans there would be no America.

How do you know?

Many regions in America were settled without violating the rights of the natives. There is no reason to expect that America very similar to today's couldn't have been built entirely through such process.

To disapprove of force against the Native Americans is to disapprove of America.

An odd statement. Libertarians may state that America is the most libertarian society today (an assertion that becomes more and more questionable every day), but no libertarians categorically approve of everything American.

[Paradigm]

Her view was basically that those who had no concept of land ownership therefore had no right to the land. Apparently Leonard Peikoff has tried to use the same argument against the Palestinians, which is pretty weird.

[Potemkin]

Her view was basically that those who had no concept of land ownership therefore had no right to the land. Apparently Leonard Peikoff has tried to use the same argument against the Palestinians, which is pretty weird.

This weirdness is what happens when you define all rights in terms of 'ownership'. Basically, it gives rights to relatively advanced societies with a concept of private property and takes rights away from relatively primitive societies without such a concept. Ayn Rand was therefore being perfectly consistent in her attitude towards the Native Americans. They didn't legally own the land they depended on for subsistence and tribal identlty, and therefore had no right to occupy or use it.

[mikema63]

Most don't take it to mean primitive societies don't have property rights, they certainly do, thus we term it taking the Indians land even though they had no concept of the land being theirs.

Don't try to pull out the "every Libertarian is an Ayn Rand clone" brush again.

[Tainari88]

Libertarians and Rand followers are weird. For many reasons. The entire concept of 'owning' the land people depend on for food, water and survival is ridiculous and in fact in many societies ownership of land is not allowed at all. Even in 'modern' westernized societies you still have public lands and the 'commons'. The corporations are after these lands still to this very day. For natural gas, coal, and mineral and many other uses for them to exploit. The government if in hands of weird thinkers like Rand followers and libertarians and extreme right types don't have a problem with getting rid of the last remnants of public land, national parks and publicly held land by communities.

[Pants-of-dog]

How do you know?

Many regions in America were settled without violating the rights of the natives.

I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Perhaps the first few settlements in New England were peacefully initiated, but later settlements there or anywhere else, including the vast westward expansion during the Gilded Age were all about violating rights.

[mikema63]

I remember quite specifically that the railroad tycoon James Hill built his transcontinental railroad by peacefully trading with the indian tribes it passed through. Whereas the government subsidized railways cleared the Indians out by force with the US army.

Of the top of my head.

[Nunt]

This whole thread seems to be a strawman to me. So far, I haven't seen anyone defending the statement that native americans had no rights.

I would like to refute the statement that it is libertarian to say that primitive societies would have no rights under libertarianism. This idea comes from a wrong and incomplete understanding of libertarian property rights. Property rights do not only include strict property (eg I own my house), but can also include less strict property rights such as easment rights. For example, I have been using this road to access my house. If someone buys all the land around my house, then I would still have the right to access my house through that road. So while I do not own the road in the strict sense and thus cannot sell it or build a gate on it, I do own the rights to use that road to access my house.

Commons are also very possible under libertarianism. A common can be defined as a natural resource to which several people have easement rights.

These easement rights are very important when dealing with nomadic societies. They don't really own land as we do, but they do use the land to feed their herds. New settlers would be allowed to cross those feeding grounds and even build some houses and farms on them, but only as long as they do not interfere with the nomadic tribes feeding grounds.

Unfortunatly, this is not how it went. However, its not because settlers often forcefully took land from the native americans, that it peaceful settlement was not possible. History only shows us how it was, not how it should've been or how it could've been.

A final misrepresentation of libertarianism here in this thread that I would like to correct is that libertarians would be in favor of major corporations taking over natural resources. But this isn't libertarian at all. Those corporations often operate with a mandate of government to take over the natural resource, and this mandate enables them to violate easement and other property rights of local inhabitants. So as you see, what those corporations are doing is merely a government mandated violation of property rights, this is not libertarian at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

I remember quite specifically that the railroad tycoon James Hill built his transcontinental railroad by peacefully trading with the indian tribes it passed through. Whereas the government subsidized railways cleared the Indians out by force with the US army.

Of the top of my head.

...other than taking advantage of laws that let him sell land that had been reserved for the indigenous people:

[Eran]

I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Pennsylvania:

The Quaker leader William Penn had signed a peace treaty with Tammany, leader of the Delaware tribe, beginning a long period of friendly relations between the Quakers and the Indians. Additional treaties between Quakers and other tribes followed. The treaty of William Penn was never violated.

...other than taking advantage of laws that let him sell land that had been reserved for the indigenous people:

I am not familiar with the details, but if the right to use the land was agreed with the Native Americans, why would that be wrong?

[Pants-of-dog]

Pennsylvania:

"The Quaker leader William Penn had signed a peace treaty with Tammany, leader of the Delaware tribe, beginning a long period of friendly relations between the Quakers and the Indians. Additional treaties between Quakers and other tribes followed. The treaty of William Penn was never violated."

So, we have one example, and that one is by a Peace Church. Thus, we can say that all peaceful interactions were only undertaken by religious groups concerned with pacifism to a degree that is considered extreme even today.

I am not familiar with the details, but if the right to use the land was agreed with the Native Americans, why would that be wrong?

Because the natives had not done so.

[Eran]

The point of contention was whether America could have been colonised without violating the rights of the natives. Pennsylvania provides an existence proof. It proves that a peaceful colonisation was possible.

Whether it was likely given prevailing attitudes of the time is another question altogether.

[Rich]

Ayn Rand was therefore being perfectly consistent in her attitude towards the Native Americans.

No she wasn't. She was saying that ownership precedes from the collective. That individual property is created by the state, its a gift of the state. Well of course this is reality. I would have thought anyone with half a brain could recognise that apparently not. When the local citizenry of some wild west town get up a posse to go hunt down some bandits, they're operating as a State. It walks like a state. It talks like a state. That's because it is a State.

Non aggression is purely in the mind of the beholder. Hitler was following the non Aggression principle when he opened Auschwitz. In his mind he was merely responding to the aggression of the Jews. The Jews having failed to conform to the civilised standards of higher cultures had forfeited their right to both property and existence as had the Native Americans in the mind of Ann Rand.

The point of contention was whether America could have been colonised without violating the rights of the natives. Pennsylvania provides an existence proof.

You must be joking. Pennsylvania was fought over by Dutch, Swedes, British, French and their neighbouring tribes. Its hardly an example of peaceful settlement. Pennsylvania was awarded to William Penn over a hundred and fifty years after first discovery by the Papist terrorist Charles II.

[Eran]

Non aggression is purely in the mind of the beholder. Hitler was following the non Aggression principle when he opened Auschwitz. In his mind he was merely responding to the aggression of the Jews.

No, it isn't. NAP is simple and objectively defined. It prohibits the initiation of force against individuals. It never allows collective punishment. Hitler never even claimed to subscribe to a non-aggression stance.

Pennsylvania was awarded to William Penn over a hundred and fifty years after first discovery by the Papist terrorist Charles II.

Nothing is perfect. The point isn't to show that the colonisation of Pennsylvania was purely peaceful, but rather than military conflict with native Americans wasn't an essential to the creation of the United States.

[Pants-of-dog]

The point of contention was whether America could have been colonised without violating the rights of the natives. Pennsylvania provides an existence proof. It proves that a peaceful colonisation was possible.

Whether it was likely given prevailing attitudes of the time is another question altogether.

Okay. It could have happened in any universe where the entirety of European settlers belonged to fringe churches with extreme pacifist views. Any USA built of such people would be vastly different than the one we have now.

It would, for example, be more leftist than the Scandinavian countries, never have embarked upon imperialism, not had the slave trade or the civil war or even the war of independence. It would not be an economic powerhouse or military superpower.

This seems to suggest that military conflict with native Americans was essential to the creation of the United States as we know it now.