[Pants-of-dog]

I wouldn't say "vast" majority, but sure, only when most people accept it is the basis for the legitimate use of force.

Precisely, of course, as is the case for your system. Native American rights (not to mention those of African Americans) weren't protected just because government (or even a Constitution) was in place. It took a majority of people deciding that it is illegitimate to use force against Native Americans (or African Americans) in particular ways for those practices to end.

I disagree. The vast majority of North Americans do not know or care about the issues of indigenous people. Thus, the wishes of the majority could have no effect.

Possibly. But more importantly, private entities (whether for and not-for profit) would "dig dirt" on other actors. We have that already, with journalists, activists and advocacy groups exposing corporate (as well as governmental) malfeasance.

In the society I anticipate, many if not most people would buy insurance against crime. That would make it in the interest of insurance companies to ensure that crime is fairly and effectively prosecuted.

You are suggesting that a system where people may profit from exposing the crimes of others is as effective as a system where there is a direct reward from exposing crimes of others.

Not as bad as today's situation. Today, you can only mobilise political action if a significant number of the entire electorate cares about your issues. In a free society, it is enough that a much smaller number of people in a similar position exist for an entrepreneur to identify that as a niche market that can be served.

This is not the case. To get back to indigenous people, they mobilised and effected political action without a significant number of the electorate caring or even noticing.

Perhaps. But government is an all-or-nothing proposition. Once captured, people are at its mercy. A private police force might serve some wealthy people, but then other members of society aren't required by law to fund it. They can throw their money to competing police forces, better positioned to serve their interests.

There is no reason to assume that the incentives of the competing rich people are any more aligned to the interests of the common people.

[Eran]

The vast majority of North Americans do not know or care about the issues of indigenous people. Thus, the wishes of the majority could have no effect.

The vast majority of North Americans have internalised modern attitudes towards minorities, including the illegitimacy of race-based discrimination and the evils of past treatment of Native Americans. Those attitudes are then reflected in official policies without the need for most people to be intimately familiar with specific issues.

You are suggesting that a system where people may profit from exposing the crimes of others is as effective as a system where there is a direct reward from exposing crimes of others.

What system is that? Certainly in the current system, there is no reward for exposing the crimes of others. People working for the criminal-justice system may be rewarded for solving high-profile crimes, but for ordinary crimes, nobody is rewarded today. Not the police officer, not the prosecutor, and certainly not the victim or witnesses.

To get back to indigenous people, they mobilised and effected political action without a significant number of the electorate caring or even noticing.

They could only do so when overall attitudes are favourable. As a proof, observe how little success they had 100-150 years ago, when the Constitutional structure of the US was essentially identical to that of today.

There is no reason to assume that the incentives of the competing rich people are any more aligned to the interests of the common people.

No reason. However, there is every reason to assume that the common people will support companies or organisations that are aligned with their interests.

[Pants-of-dog]

The vast majority of North Americans have internalised modern attitudes towards minorities, including the illegitimacy of race-based discrimination and the evils of past treatment of Native Americans. Those attitudes are then reflected in official policies without the need for most people to be intimately familiar with specific issues.

They could only do so when overall attitudes are favourable. As a proof, observe how little success they had 100-150 years ago, when the Constitutional structure of the US was essentially identical to that of today.

Actually, indigenous Americans are still getting screwed by gov'ts and private companies. This is partly due to general apathy on the part of the public. By that I mean that this a majority of people do not know or care that gov't and private forces are doing these things. The vast majority of gains by indigenous people happen in courtrooms that no one has ever heard of. At best, you can argue that this was only possible due to overall acceptance of the rule of law. However, it also requires enforcement of policies that are specifically not in the majority's interests, such as respect for the rights of minorities.

If you are basing your idea that you can build a society on majority acceptance of the NAP and the absolute minimum of laws beyond that, how does that create a provision for those aspects of the NAP that would go against the interests of the majority of individuals?

More specific to the OP, respecting the NAP would require giving most of the Americas back to indigenous communities. How would you convince the majority of non-indigenous people in the Americas to do that? Simply pointing out the logic of it won't work, since even Ayn Rand apparently found a logical loophole with which to rationalise such theft.

What system is that? Certainly in the current system, there is no reward for exposing the crimes of others. People working for the criminal-justice system may be rewarded for solving high-profile crimes, but for ordinary crimes, nobody is rewarded today. Not the police officer, not the prosecutor, and certainly not the victim or witnesses.

I am claiming that politicians cannot overtly act selfishly and immorally because their political competitors would gain an immediate and direct benefit by exposing it.

No reason. However, there is every reason to assume that the common people will support companies or organisations that are aligned with their interests.

A private police force does not need the support of the community. They only need the support of their patron.

[Someone5]

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.

Certainly she did have a problem with aboriginal groups of all sorts. Who knows why. Racism probably. It's evident even in her popular work, like Atlas Shrugged, where it is mentioned explicitly towards the end.

[Eran]

Actually, indigenous Americans are still getting screwed by gov'ts and private companies.

They are indeed getting screwed by governments - by being treated as charity cases, promoting a culture of dependence and leading to poverty.

Unrecognised Indian tribes tend to do much better than the recognised ones.

If you are basing your idea that you can build a society on majority acceptance of the NAP and the absolute minimum of laws beyond that, how does that create a provision for those aspects of the NAP that would go against the interests of the majority of individuals?

Such as?

More specific to the OP, respecting the NAP would require giving most of the Americas back to indigenous communities.

No, it wouldn't. Because the NAP applies to individuals, not to communities. No person alive today can document just-property rights in specific pieces of land.

There are, however, examples in which strict adherence to the NAP would require significant changes. Specifically, Israel would have to allow many Palestinians to return to their homes (for which they hold titles), or pay compensation to the others.

Having said that, we shouldn't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Just because perfect justice cannot be achieved, we should abandon the idea of justice.

Murray Rothbard wrote a detailed history of Colonial America. While generally factual, it is clear that his perspective is that the colonialization project could have been successful without violating the NAP, but rather through reaching (and sticking with) agreements with the native Americans.

I am claiming that politicians cannot overtly act selfishly and immorally because their political competitors would gain an immediate and direct benefit by exposing it.

1. They can covertly act selfishly and immorally though.
2. Your argument would only work if the selfish and immoral acts were considered material enough to over-ride the other priorities of voters. Since voters only get one vote, they will often say "yes, this guy is corrupt, but he managed to bring all that Federal money to our district", or "yes, this guy is corrupt, but the other guy would support (or opposed) abortion rights". Thus voters make their decision based on the single most important factor to them, and (moderate) corruption may not rise to that level.
3. This argument only applies to those actions considered corrupt and immoral by community standards. Thus using pressure to bring Federal contracts to one's district isn't considered corrupt and immoral, even though it is.

A private police force does not need the support of the community. They only need the support of their patron.

If a private police force acts against the norms of the community, they will be resisted by all the other private police forces hired by the community.

[Pants-of-dog]

They are indeed getting screwed by governments - by being treated as charity cases, promoting a culture of dependence and leading to poverty.

Unrecognised Indian tribes tend to do much better than the recognised ones.

This is simply not true. Indigenous communities are not charity cases. Issues of dependence have nothing to do with gov't intervention the way you think, private companies also screw them around, and the poverty is a result of having most of their land stolen from them.

No, it wouldn't. Because the NAP applies to individuals, not to communities.

So according to the NAP, you can steal the land if it belongs to a community and not individuals. There. Now you also have a rationalisation for taking their land.

No person alive today can document just-property rights in specific pieces of land.

I have no idea what you mean by that. If you are suggesting that native groups are unable to show that they actually own the land according to both native laws and UK laws, you are incorrect.

Murray Rothbard wrote a detailed history of Colonial America. While generally factual, it is clear that his perspective is that the colonialization project could have been successful without violating the NAP, but rather through reaching (and sticking with) agreements with the native Americans.

Yes. if everyone had magically been good, everything would have been magically better.

1. They can covertly act selfishly and immorally though.

True, but difficult.

2. Your argument would only work if the selfish and immoral acts were considered material enough to over-ride the other priorities of voters. Since voters only get one vote, they will often say "yes, this guy is corrupt, but he managed to bring all that Federal money to our district", or "yes, this guy is corrupt, but the other guy would support (or opposed) abortion rights". Thus voters make their decision based on the single most important factor to them, and (moderate) corruption may not rise to that level.

Have you never heard a news article saying that a political figure was "forced to resign due to" blablabla?

3. This argument only applies to those actions considered corrupt and immoral by community standards. Thus using pressure to bring Federal contracts to one's district isn't considered corrupt and immoral, even though it is.

Why is it immoral to try and get jobs in your region?

If a private police force acts against the norms of the community, they will be resisted by all the other private police forces hired by the community.

Maybe. depends on the resources of the community, but this does not change the fact that a private police serves their patron and not the public.

[Eran]

the poverty is a result of having most of their land stolen from them.

How can you say that?

Why are Native Americans poorer than all those immigrants who arrived to America without any land at all?

So according to the NAP, you can steal the land if it belongs to a community and not individuals.

No. According to the NAP, you cannot steal land. The question isn't regarding the permissibility of stealing land, but regarding the appropriate remedial action. That action is very different when an identifiable person can demonstrate ownership of an identifiable lot of land, vs. one in which a person merely claims membership in a loose group, some of whose members used to use a general region.

If you are suggesting that native groups are unable to show that they actually own the land according to both native laws and UK laws, you are incorrect.

I wrote "no person". No individual person can demonstrate and document such property rights. Even if they could, after many generations, the just solution isn't necessarily to provide the distant heirs of the originally-dispossessed with title to their land.

Yes. if everyone had magically been good, everything would have been magically better.

Some Europeans have treated natives fairly and were able to create thriving communities living in peace with their native neighbours.

Why is it immoral to try and get jobs in your region?

The immoral part is to use the power of office to indirectly use violence to coerce other people to give money to your constituents.

If we unpeel layers of convention, this is precisely what happens when Federal funds are handed to a project in a specific district.

Maybe. depends on the resources of the community, but this does not change the fact that a private police serves their patron and not the public.

A private police force serves its clients (not "patron") in the same way that elected officials serve their constituency.

From my perspective, while the former can be done without violating anybody's rights (though clearly rights could be violated), the latter necessarily requires right violations.

But even from your perspective, from which political action is sometimes (or even often) legitimate, you have to agree that a politician could act illegitimately in the service of their constituency.

Neither system is immune to abuse.

[Pants-of-dog]

How can you say that?

Why are Native Americans poorer than all those immigrants who arrived to America without any land at all?

They are poorer than the early immigrants because the early immigrants were the ones who took the land. They are poorer than later immigrants because all sorts of laws were either ignored or put into place when it came to ensuring that they could not take part in the economy that was ultimately based on their land.

No. According to the NAP, you cannot steal land. The question isn't regarding the permissibility of stealing land, but regarding the appropriate remedial action. That action is very different when an identifiable person can demonstrate ownership of an identifiable lot of land, vs. one in which a person merely claims membership in a loose group, some of whose members used to use a general region.

In most cases, indigenous communities can demonstrate ownership of an identifiable lot of land.

I wrote "no person". No individual person can demonstrate and document such property rights. Even if they could, after many generations, the just solution isn't necessarily to provide the distant heirs of the originally-dispossessed with title to their land.

Yes. Certain individuals can and have demonstrated and documented such property rights.

The NAP says that the land should be returned to them, as far as I can tell. Does the NAP no longer apply when the land was stolen a long time ago?

Some Europeans have treated natives fairly and were able to create thriving communities living in peace with their native neighbours.

Yes. We discussed that. They were pacifist religious groups considered very leftist even by today's standards.

The immoral part is to use the power of office to indirectly use violence to coerce other people to give money to your constituents.

If we unpeel layers of convention, this is precisely what happens when Federal funds are handed to a project in a specific district.

Then when you tax me in order to support property rights of my neighbour, are you doing something immoral?

A private police force serves its clients (not "patron") in the same way that elected officials serve their constituency.

That may be. However, a private police force protects its client, i.e. its patron or whoever pays them. A public police force protects the public.

[Eran]

They are poorer than later immigrants because all sorts of laws were either ignored or put into place when it came to ensuring that they could not take part in the economy that was ultimately based on their land.

Are you claiming that native Americans were more legally discriminated against than were Italian, Irish, Jews, Chinese, Koreans and other immigrant populations that established themselves in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and are now much more prosperous than the native Americans (on average)?

In most cases, indigenous communities can demonstrate ownership of an identifiable lot of land.

Ownership is personal, not communal. Membership in communities is a famously elastic concept.

The NAP says that the land should be returned to them, as far as I can tell. Does the NAP no longer apply when the land was stolen a long time ago?

The NAP doesn't cease to exist. It stipulates that it is wrong to initiate force against other people's peaceful projects. How that calling is translated to remedying violations that took place centuries ago is a completely separate question. None of the natives currently alive today has had force initiated against them personally, have they?

Then when you tax me in order to support property rights of my neighbour, are you doing something immoral?

Yes!

I'd much rather live in a society in which no person is taxed for any reason. Some people (Rand supporters mainly) believe one can fund a minimal state exclusively via voluntary contributions. I think that is plausible.

However, a private police force protects its client, i.e. its patron or whoever pays them. A public police force protects the public.

No. A public police force is supposed to protect the public. That's not the same thing.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you claiming that native Americans were more legally discriminated against than were Italian, Irish, Jews, Chinese, Koreans and other immigrant populations that established themselves in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and are now much more prosperous than the native Americans (on average)?

Yes.

Ownership is personal, not communal. Membership in communities is a famously elastic concept.

The elasticity of membership in a community has nothing to do with whether or not ownership is personal or communal. It is your opinion that ownership cannot be communal, and this opinion could be the basis for rationalisations as to why white people can keep the land they stole. However, the laws of both indigenous and settler communities recognise communal rights to land, and thus the opinion is not applicable.

The NAP doesn't cease to exist. It stipulates that it is wrong to initiate force against other people's peaceful projects. How that calling is translated to remedying violations that took place centuries ago is a completely separate question. None of the natives currently alive today has had force initiated against them personally, have they?

Yes. There are many, many residential school survivors here in Canada. Feel free to look up the harrowing history of it all. And indigenous communities are still getting land stolen from them as we speak. I can think of two different episodes that have happened in my lifetime and within the general area of where I live.

Yes!

I'd much rather live in a society in which no person is taxed for any reason. Some people (Rand supporters mainly) believe one can fund a minimal state exclusively via voluntary contributions. I think that is plausible.

Okay, so I will assume you support a gov't that would protect property rights, but would not tax its citizens in order to get the funds to do so.

How would it get the funds?

No. A public police force is supposed to protect the public. That's not the same thing.

Okay. A private police force is supposed to protect its client.

[Eran]

The elasticity of membership in a community has nothing to do with whether or not ownership is personal or communal.

It has everything to do with the consequences of such ownership. A community isn't a person, nor even a legal person. It is a flexible and subjective concept.

The only reason to even consider people born in the 20th century as having been injured by actions that took place well before they were born is under the theory that absent those actions, they would have inherited the land (or other assets) in question.

As the centuries go by, it becomes more and more difficult for an alleged descendent of an 17th-century-displaced tribes-people to plausibly argue that justice is better served by displacing people who have occupied that land for centuries in favour of himself.

Ultimately we all recognise that past injustices cannot all be perfectly remedied. What is left is to use our judgement to find the best reasonable remedy to those injustices. When the injustice is a theft that took place yesterday, or even the eviction of a Palestinian farmer 65 years ago, restitution is plausibly the most just solution.

When the issue is ancient ancestral land in which no living person, nor even any person personally known to any living person, has actually lived or worked, restitution appears much less appropriate.

To be clear, the question cannot be answered in the abstract using philosophical reasoning alone. It is down to reasonable people using their judgement. This is mine.

Yes. There are many, many residential school survivors here in Canada. Feel free to look up the harrowing history of it all. And indigenous communities are still getting land stolen from them as we speak. I can think of two different episodes that have happened in my lifetime and within the general area of where I live.

That is a very different issue. Obviously if land is being stolen today (or within living memory), it should be restored to its rightful owners.

Okay, so I will assume you support a gov't that would protect property rights, but would not tax its citizens in order to get the funds to do so.

How would it get the funds?

People who would support such government would argue that it could be funded from voluntary contributions.

I am an anarchist, and thus object to any government whatsoever. In the society I advocate, most right-protection would be funded by the people whose rights are being protected (greatly bolstered by the principle that the guilty party generally pays for the cost of enforcement!).

In some cases, charitable institutions will help in the protection of the rights of particularly weak people (e.g. orphans).

Okay. A private police force is supposed to protect its client.

Indeed. But while it is very easy for a client who believes the private police force no longer protects his rights to shift his premium payments to one that does a better job, the feedback mechanism whereby the public shifts its political support from one police chief to another is much slower and more difficult.

In particular, there is no good mechanism to ensure that the public police protects all members of society. A minority (e.g. ghetto population) could be left unprotected (or worse - molested) without having the political power to resist.

Further, in many countries, police chiefs aren't elected directly. The question of replacing them is mixed with numerous other political questions. If I feel the police is doing a mediocre job, I could still vote for the ruling party because other issues are more important to me.

[Pants-of-dog]

It has everything to do with the consequences of such ownership. A community isn't a person, nor even a legal person. It is a flexible and subjective concept.

The only reason to even consider people born in the 20th century as having been injured by actions that took place well before they were born is under the theory that absent those actions, they would have inherited the land (or other assets) in question.

As the centuries go by, it becomes more and more difficult for an alleged descendent of an 17th-century-displaced tribes-people to plausibly argue that justice is better served by displacing people who have occupied that land for centuries in favour of himself.

Ultimately we all recognise that past injustices cannot all be perfectly remedied. What is left is to use our judgement to find the best reasonable remedy to those injustices. When the injustice is a theft that took place yesterday, or even the eviction of a Palestinian farmer 65 years ago, restitution is plausibly the most just solution.

When the issue is ancient ancestral land in which no living person, nor even any person personally known to any living person, has actually lived or worked, restitution appears much less appropriate.

To be clear, the question cannot be answered in the abstract using philosophical reasoning alone. It is down to reasonable people using their judgement. This is mine.

There you go. You have now rationalised stealing people's land away from them.

All that is required is to drag out the court process long enough that the last person who was alive at the time of the crime is dead, regardless of whether or not the people who would have inherited the land are still pursuing the claim in court.

That is a very different issue. Obviously if land is being stolen today (or within living memory), it should be restored to its rightful owners.

But not if it's the kids who are alive and claiming the land, right?

People who would support such government would argue that it could be funded from voluntary contributions.

In other words, they would simply pray for everyone to be nice and ignore the whole free rider issue.

I am an anarchist, and thus object to any government whatsoever. In the society I advocate, most right-protection would be funded by the people whose rights are being protected (greatly bolstered by the principle that the guilty party generally pays for the cost of enforcement!).

In some cases, charitable institutions will help in the protection of the rights of particularly weak people (e.g. orphans).

Yes, people would only get the justice they could pay for. Poor communities, like many indigenous communities, would just have to lump it.

Indeed. But while it is very easy for a client who believes the private police force no longer protects his rights to shift his premium payments to one that does a better job, the feedback mechanism whereby the public shifts its political support from one police chief to another is much slower and more difficult.

In particular, there is no good mechanism to ensure that the public police protects all members of society. A minority (e.g. ghetto population) could be left unprotected (or worse - molested) without having the political power to resist.

Further, in many countries, police chiefs aren't elected directly. The question of replacing them is mixed with numerous other political questions. If I feel the police is doing a mediocre job, I could still vote for the ruling party because other issues are more important to me.

That's nice. As long as we agree that your proposal has no one that protects the public. The police only protect those who have money.

[Eran]

All that is required is to drag out the court process long enough that the last person who was alive at the time of the crime is dead, regardless of whether or not the people who would have inherited the land are still pursuing the claim in court.

In the same way that arguing against punishing sons for murder committed by their parents rationalises murder.

By your logic, "all that is required is to drag out the court process long enough that the murderer dies of natural causes".

Obviously, justice cannot be served in a system in which court cases can be dragged for years, let alone decades and centuries. Retroactively restoring property to the distant descendants of those harmed by violence isn't justice.

But not if it's the kids who are alive and claiming the land, right?

How many grains of sand make a heap?

It is a matter of degree. The further back in time, the weaker the claims of the descendants. I am not going to pass judgement in the abstract as to whether the rights dissipate after one or five generations. I am making a personal judgement that in the case of east-coast native Americans, those displaced over 150 years ago, restitution to the sixth-generation descendants doesn't make sense.

In other words, they would simply pray for everyone to be nice and ignore the whole free rider issue.

When I buy a house in a new neighbourhood, do I "pray" that somebody would open a supermarket?

When you advocate a liberal democracy, do you "pray" that some descent people would run for office?

Do you "pray" that the majority of your fellow citizens won't vote in a new Hitler?

Do you "pray" that the President won't successfully conduct a military coup?

When living in society, we routinely rely on the good will of our fellow citizens. Without that good will, no formal system of government can guarantee good results.

Yes, people would only get the justice they could pay for. Poor communities, like many indigenous communities, would just have to lump it.

Actually, it will be easier and more reliably-possible to get good justice than, say, adequate supply of food and clothing.

The reason is the guilty-pays principle. Regardless of how poor you are, if you have a compelling case, you will find a large corporation who'll be happy to take your case, as, given a good chance of successful prosecution, they will have their (reasonable) expenses paid by the guilty party.

In addition, an analysis of the cost of police protection (as a fraction of overall taxes paid, and excluding the cost of victimless crimes) will easily show that such protection is easily affordable.

As a last resort, people can organise and protect themselves, an option not available to oppressed minorities in a democracy.

As long as we agree that your proposal has no one that protects the public. The police only protect those who have money.

To about the same degree that today, police only protects those who have political power.

Today, nobody feeds the public, nobody clothes the public, and nobody supplies the public with cellular phones and TVs. Yet even poor people in the developed world have ample food (their problem is too much, rather than too little of it), clothing, cellular phones and TVs.

Since people require physical protection even more than they require cellular phones, and since such protection is much cheaper (see above), what makes you think this is going to be a problem?

[Pants-of-dog]

In the same way that arguing against punishing sons for murder committed by their parents rationalises murder.

There is no comparison between the two situations.

By your logic, "all that is required is to drag out the court process long enough that the murderer dies of natural causes".

Obviously, justice cannot be served in a system in which court cases can be dragged for years, let alone decades and centuries. Retroactively restoring property to the distant descendants of those harmed by violence isn't justice.

Why is it not justice to return the land to the rightful owners?

You, like Ayn Rand, seem to be advocating the use of force against Native Americans. Oddly enough, your rationalisation is that this is fine because the gov't deliberately slowed down judicial proceedings.

How many grains of sand make a heap?

It is a matter of degree. The further back in time, the weaker the claims of the descendants. I am not going to pass judgement in the abstract as to whether the rights dissipate after one or five generations. I am making a personal judgement that in the case of east-coast native Americans, those displaced over 150 years ago, restitution to the sixth-generation descendants doesn't make sense.

Why not? Other than the passage of time, there is no apparent reason. You also seem to be completely ignoring the fact that these communities have been pursuing this legal claim during this whole time.

When I buy a house in a new neighbourhood, do I "pray" that somebody would open a supermarket?

When you advocate a liberal democracy, do you "pray" that some descent people would run for office?

Do you "pray" that the majority of your fellow citizens won't vote in a new Hitler?

Do you "pray" that the President won't successfully conduct a military coup?

When living in society, we routinely rely on the good will of our fellow citizens. Without that good will, no formal system of government can guarantee good results.

There is a qualitative difference between the amount of faith required in a liberal democracy and one in an anarchy: in a liberal democracy, enough faith is required so that the system does not fall apart. In an anarchy, there has to be enough faith that it actually powers the whole system.

In other words, I only have to hope that people do not fuck it up en masse. You have to hope that people act incredibly good en masse.

Actually, it will be easier and more reliably-possible to get good justice than, say, adequate supply of food and clothing.

The reason is the guilty-pays principle. Regardless of how poor you are, if you have a compelling case, you will find a large corporation who'll be happy to take your case, as, given a good chance of successful prosecution, they will have their (reasonable) expenses paid by the guilty party.

In addition, an analysis of the cost of police protection (as a fraction of overall taxes paid, and excluding the cost of victimless crimes) will easily show that such protection is easily affordable.

As a last resort, people can organise and protect themselves, an option not available to oppressed minorities in a democracy.

Do you have any historical examples?

To about the same degree that today, police only protects those who have political power.

Today, nobody feeds the public, nobody clothes the public, and nobody supplies the public with cellular phones and TVs. Yet even poor people in the developed world have ample food (their problem is too much, rather than too little of it), clothing, cellular phones and TVs.

Since people require physical protection even more than they require cellular phones, and since such protection is much cheaper (see above), what makes you think this is going to be a problem?

Please do not confuse the market for commodity goods for the completely different market for police protection.

[Eran]

Why is it not justice to return the land to the rightful owners?

It is justice, by definition, to return the land to the rightful owner.

What is less clear is who that rightful owner is. Specifically, whether the remote descendants of people who used to own the land hundreds of years ago are more "rightful" than those who worked and improved it over the past several centuries.

You, like Ayn Rand, seem to be advocating the use of force against Native Americans. Oddly enough, your rationalisation is that this is fine because the gov't deliberately slowed down judicial proceedings.

Are you familiar with South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation Commission"?

Would you argue that those who backed the Commission, but of whose function was to give amnesty to professed criminals, thereby advocated the use of force against Black South Africans?

Why not? Other than the passage of time, there is no apparent reason. You also seem to be completely ignoring the fact that these communities have been pursuing this legal claim during this whole time.

The passage of (a lot of) time is relevant to the appropriate mode of restitution. Would you similarly advocate the restoration of much of England to the descendants of its original Celtic population (now living in Wales)? How about undoing the Bantu expansion? The move of the Germanic people into central and western Europe?

If a specific group has consistently attempted to use the legal system to pursue a specific piece of land, that is certainly a point worthy of consideration. I have made broad statements with East-coast native Americans displaced early in the colonisation process in mind.

There may well be cases in which displacement was more recent, and which are worthy of more direct restitution. It is impossible to say in the abstract.

There is a qualitative difference between the amount of faith required in a liberal democracy and one in an anarchy: in a liberal democracy, enough faith is required so that the system does not fall apart. In an anarchy, there has to be enough faith that it actually powers the whole system.

Democracies fall apart all the time. Democracies gives a small group of charismatic and power-hungry individuals enormous powers. I would argue that the stability of such a system is much less guaranteed, much more of a miracle, if you will, than that of a system in which power and authority are truly, fundamentally and principally divided.

In other words, I only have to hope that people do not fuck it up en masse. You have to hope that people act incredibly good en masse.

Not at all. Democratic stability relies on the perception by leaders that the people will jealously guard their freedoms against any attempts at incursion. Egypt today is an excellent example of what happens when that perception is not there. In Egypt's case, the president appears to have been wrong, and folded. But in many other cases, democratically-elected presidents correctly assessed that the public won't rise to defend their freedoms.

An anarchy is inherently more stable because no single person is equipped with either the force or the authority (and perceived legitimacy) that a democratic president has.

A democratic president is thus much more likely to succeed and assert dictatorial power (as happened numerous times in the past) than is a leader of a group in an anarchy, where any usurpation of power is immediately and unmistakeably identified for the criminal act that it is. In an anarchy, there is no smoke-screen of "national emergency" or "acting in the common good", or "following the mandate of the people" to hide behind.

Do you have any historical examples?

In the most recent wave of riots in Britain, some neighbourhoods organised to protect their property against rioters. The Zionist settlers of Palestine self-organised for self-defence before the State of Israel was formed.

I have no doubt that the history of American colonialization could furnish many examples of settlers organising for mutual self-defence well in advance of the arrival of effective government forces.

Please do not confuse the market for commodity goods for the completely different market for police protection.

How do you see the flourishing private security industry? How is it different from any other service industry?

[Pants-of-dog]

It is justice, by definition, to return the land to the rightful owner.

What is less clear is who that rightful owner is. Specifically, whether the remote descendants of people who used to own the land hundreds of years ago are more "rightful" than those who worked and improved it over the past several centuries.

The people who worked it did so illegally, and by doing so, made it impossible for the real owners to work their land. In fact, the rightful owners should also be recompensed for this loss of opportunity.

Are you familiar with South Africa's "Truth and Reconciliation Commission"?

Would you argue that those who backed the Commission, but of whose function was to give amnesty to professed criminals, thereby advocated the use of force against Black South Africans?

Let us focus on native Americans. Do you think that the land should be given to white people because the gov't deliberately slowed down court proceedings until the original claimants were all dead?

The passage of (a lot of) time is relevant to the appropriate mode of restitution. Would you similarly advocate the restoration of much of England to the descendants of its original Celtic population (now living in Wales)? How about undoing the Bantu expansion? The move of the Germanic people into central and western Europe?

If a specific group has consistently attempted to use the legal system to pursue a specific piece of land, that is certainly a point worthy of consideration. I have made broad statements with East-coast native Americans displaced early in the colonisation process in mind.

There may well be cases in which displacement was more recent, and which are worthy of more direct restitution. It is impossible to say in the abstract.

This is why I specifically pointed out the continuity of the legal proceedings. Have the Celts or Bantu continued an uninterrupted legal trial for all this time?

[Eran]

Let us focus on native Americans. Do you think that the land should be given to white people because the gov't deliberately slowed down court proceedings until the original claimants were all dead?

I think it depends on circumstances.

This is why I specifically pointed out the continuity of the legal proceedings. Have the Celts or Bantu continued an uninterrupted legal trial for all this time?

You only pointed out continuity of legal proceedings in the previous post, at which I immediately acknowledged it to be a relevant factor in favour of native Americans.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think it depends on circumstances.

What circumstances would those be?

You only pointed out continuity of legal proceedings in the previous post, at which I immediately acknowledged it to be a relevant factor in favour of native Americans.

Here is another question: this legal continuity could not have occurred if the British Crown had not also continued as a legal entity during this whole time. Would it be all right to not give the natives their land back if the continuity had been disrupted during, say, the Cromwell era? Or if the UK had succumbed to the Nazis?

[Eran]

What circumstances would those be?

Off the top of my hand, the length of time since the initial displacement, the nature of occupation of the original land and its extent, any compensation (monetary or in land) already accepted by the tribe, the nature and persistence of legal claims, current ownership and use-pattern in the land, quality of documentation of current claimants' descent from original occupiers, any treaties signed voluntarily and affecting the process.

Here is another question: this legal continuity could not have occurred if the British Crown had not also continued as a legal entity during this whole time. Would it be all right to not give the natives their land back if the continuity had been disrupted during, say, the Cromwell era? Or if the UK had succumbed to the Nazis?

Add that issue to the list of circumstances above, further supporting my view that it is futile to come up with a single, categorical, arm-chair-based answer to the incredibly diverse and complex set of circumstances.

[Pants-of-dog]

Off the top of my hand, the length of time since the initial displacement, the nature of occupation of the original land and its extent, any compensation (monetary or in land) already accepted by the tribe, the nature and persistence of legal claims, current ownership and use-pattern in the land, quality of documentation of current claimants' descent from original occupiers, any treaties signed voluntarily and affecting the process.

No offense, but a lot of these seem arbitrary and unsupported by libertarian thought.

If I steal your stuff and use it for something that is useful to me and the rest of my community in that it supports the local economy, does that somehow make it less of a theft?

Just to be clear, many current land claims by NA indigenous communities are about treaty violations by settlers who simply ignored the treaty when they moved in. The communities were supposed to be given certain things in return for letting us live on their land. We have not kept up our half of the contract in terms of payment or keeping ourselves to those lands that we should be on. The communities have been pursuing legal claims since we reneged on our side of the contract (i.e. almost immediately) and both the Crown and the communities affected have the paperwork showing the legal claim.

Add that issue to the list of circumstances above, further supporting my view that it is futile to come up with a single, categorical, arm-chair-based answer to the incredibly diverse and complex set of circumstances.

Or, as I see it, add another reason why the NAP can be ignored when it comes to actual issues of theft.