@Eamon Arasbard
And finally, I have a question about an argument which I've seen from a lot of Objectivists regarding primitive societies -- namely, that you should support any advanced civilization which is in conflict with a more primitive society for possession of territory, for the reason that they are more advanced. How far do you take this argument?
I actually haven't heard anyone state this. Or at least, stated this way, it really isn't Rand's position. For Rand's position, I agree she made unfair generalizations of Native Americans, but her premise as I remember is that a sufficiently primitive societys has no sense of property rights. If they have no sense of propety rights, there are no property rights to violate. Any "invaders" are morally justified to claim territory, especially by being a considerably advanced society. I don't think it is meant to justify killing, just that property wasn't stolen or appropriated. It's not that one society or another has territory, though.
The important question is if they really were so primitive. Maybe some were, but as you say, plenty did have notions of property and/or rights, even if not fully developed.
25 comments
...You know, I'm embarrassed that I actually used to subscribe to Objectivist nonsense like this, and libertarianism in general.
How do you guys KNOW "primitive" societies don't have a notion of property rights? If anything, that just dehumanizes people from a different society and justifies mistreating them like most Natives were mistreated when the colonists came in.
If they had no notion of property rights then they wouldn't have fought against European settlers trying to take it away from them.
Even animals have notions of property rights, it's called territoriality. Humans add all kinds of complexities to it, but another civilization having a different notion of those complexities doesn't make its notion of property rights invalid.
EDIT:
I am by no means suggesting we should respect the property rights of animals. Just pointing out that property rights aren't some modern-day invention, its a formalization of natural instincts we've had long before our ancestors evolved into modern humans.
a sufficiently primitive societys has no sense of property rights. If they have no sense of propety rights, there are no property rights to violate.
This means that it's also perfectly OK to steal from a baby - after all, that baby doesn't have a sense of property rights, so anything they have can't be stolen.
They did have a notion of property rights. The difference is that they held, and still hold in cases where they are allowed, the land in communal ownership. Essentially, all land was public land, to be used by the group.
But of course, private ownership is the only thing that counts with you fucking libertarian dipshits.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is why Objectivism is fucking retarded.
Well, aside from the shitty novels and selfishness.
Yes, that was EXACTLY Ayn Rand's position. Primitive people who couldn't use the land they occupied in a way she thought proper were justifiably wiped out,displaced or enslaved for a "higher" purpose. Historically most wars are a form of violent real estate transaction, or a grotesque strong arm version of a theological debate. Replace "sense of property rights" with sense of home or belonging. And being from the south myself, I assume your name is pronounced You all.
Since your opinion here is completely moronic, Eiuol, does that mean I can decide that you're primitive and don't understand property rights, then rob you of all your money and belongings?
Because the property isn't stolen or appropriated if the person who took it decides the person who originally had it was too primitive to understand the concept of ownership, right?
@ #1898998: no, because vultures actually serve a valuable purpose in the ecosystems in which they are native, by helping to dispose of carrion.
Objectivism would be more akin to Ebola than a scavenger animal.
This reminds me how, in 1972, the Suprmee Court of the Northern Territories said, in Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd, that in the common law, desert territory "have always been taken to include territory in which live uncivilized inhabitants in a primitive state of society" before saying Australian law didn't recognise Aboriginal title.
At least, Justice Blackmun, author of this opinion, said, in a secret memorandum, it would be just to give Natives titles to their lands.
her premise as I remember is that a sufficiently primitive societys has no sense of property rights
Except that's nonsense. As I remember, stone age humans are thought to have begun associating with packs of dogs as much as 25,000 years ago because dogs (who certainly have a sense of "property rights" even today) protected them from marauding hordes of other humans who otherwise would steal their stuff and capture the women. The "no sense of property rights" is just a rationalization of "might makes right".
@Old Viking---Total agreement sir or ma'am(not making assumptions). I've checked out A.R.'s written work and while I acknowledge being somewhat verbose and pedantic,'cause I can be,several paragraphs of Ayn Rand makes me feel my use of language is concise, precise, and brief.
To say that "a sufficiently primitive societys has no sense of property rights" is to make unfair generalizations, nitwit. They just had (have) a different kind of sense of property rights to yours.
What is to be an "advanced society", btw? Living with the land, taking only what you need and giving back to the land, is fairly advanced I'd say. Fracking, off-shore drilling, spewing out carbon into the environment while cutting down the forests that would rinse the environment of the excess carbon, things like that are hardly advanced.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.