1493: The Democratic American Government declares: America for Americans

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Agema:

Realitycrash:

Now I know what you are thinking "Hey, wait, we got inheritance", but what makes THAT so moral? They are basically getting a piece of land that they did NOT claim first, but in fact just in merit of being a biological product of another person.

One of the fundamental points of property is that one may do with what one owns as one wishes. Such as, for instance, bequeath it to ones children. If that is not moral, you are coming close to arguing property is not moral. Do you want to go there?

I challenge the fact that one may do with ones property as one wishes, and that this should be a fundamental fact. It might be a legal fact, but it is thus not necessarily very moral. There are several things I can do with my property that are in fact out-right immoral (I might own a burning heap of tires - think the Simpsons - and burn them for my enjoyment on my property, thus polluting the neighborhood).
Property is, like actions, under sanction of how it affects others. There's even an inheritance tax in many societies, just to reflect that "No, you can't just give away your hundreds of acres of lands to your only child, because society needs some of this land, and your child does not" (Dramatizing, of course. You get to keep your land as long as you pay your dues, etc).

Realitycrash:

I challenge the fact that one may do with ones property as one wishes, and that this should be a fundamental fact. It might be a legal fact, but it is thus not necessarily very moral. There are several things I can do with my property that are in fact out-right immoral (I might own a burning heap of tires - think the Simpsons - and burn them for my enjoyment on my property, thus polluting the neighborhood).
Property is, like actions, under sanction of how it affects others. There's even an inheritance tax in many societies, just to reflect that "No, you can't just give away your hundreds of acres of lands to your only child, because society needs some of this land, and your child does not" (Dramatizing, of course. You get to keep your land as long as you pay your dues, etc).

What you are effectively trying to argue is that there are moral reasons against giving people the right to do certain things with their property because of the impact on others. Where these are particularly strong, certain things may be restricted.

The basis is therefore still a fundamental moral right to do with ones stuff as one pleases. You are constructing exceptions to this fundamental moral rule for particular circumstances.

Agema:

Realitycrash:

I challenge the fact that one may do with ones property as one wishes, and that this should be a fundamental fact. It might be a legal fact, but it is thus not necessarily very moral. There are several things I can do with my property that are in fact out-right immoral (I might own a burning heap of tires - think the Simpsons - and burn them for my enjoyment on my property, thus polluting the neighborhood).
Property is, like actions, under sanction of how it affects others. There's even an inheritance tax in many societies, just to reflect that "No, you can't just give away your hundreds of acres of lands to your only child, because society needs some of this land, and your child does not" (Dramatizing, of course. You get to keep your land as long as you pay your dues, etc).

What you are effectively trying to argue is that there are moral reasons against giving people the right to do certain things with their property because of the impact on others. Where these are particularly strong, certain things may be restricted.

The basis is therefore still a fundamental moral right to do with ones stuff as one pleases. You are constructing exceptions to this fundamental moral rule for particular circumstances.

If there are exceptions, then the right isn't very fundamental. And as I see it, there are many, many exceptions.
Now, I'm not trying to challenge that we allow inheritance (even though I am in favor of a major taxing on it), however, if we we accept Contractualism (Morality is created by agreements and tacit concent, not natural), then there's nothing wrong with claiming "I'm here first, thus I have a moral claim to these lands", if it is indeed what our society deems to be moral. However, this opens up a whole can of worms (as pointed out by others) if a land was at any point before settled by someone else, and is thus not rightfully "yours", but taken by conquest.

This is a moot point. The Native Americans had nation-states and limited sufferance. European and neo-European governments signed numerous treaties with local nations and then simply ignored them when the terms were inconvenient. It was a simple matter of the strong taking advantage of the weak. I don't doubt that, had the positions been reversed, the Iroquis Aztecs, and Shawnee wouldn't have jostled for control of a Britain and Iberia devastated by disease and ripe for exploitation or cared one fig for how long the locals had lived on the land.

Realitycrash:

cthulhuspawn82:
I think its safe to say that you can morally claim ownership and sovereignty of the land you live on and the area immediately around it, I don't think someone could build a house in the middle of an island the size of Australia and claim the whole continent belongs to him because he built there first.

Why can you claim it on the land you live on, though? What's so moral about being there "first"?
If the first generation settled an entire country (and let's assume no-one lived there before they came), then the second generation wouldn't have any moral claim to anywhere to live.
Now I know what you are thinking "Hey, wait, we got inheritance", but what makes THAT so moral? They are basically getting a piece of land that they did NOT claim first, but in fact just in merit of being a biological product of another person.
In the end, it comes down to "Because if you try to take it from me, I will fight you for it, and I'm stronger".

I say its moral to claim the land you live on, assuming its not already owned, because if someone else taking it would involve them forcibly removing you and either destroying or stealing your house. If someone wanted to build a house right next to yours however, I think that would be fine. You cant morally claim an empty lot of land adjacent to your house that you are not using.

As for inheritance. Obviously if someone owns land they can give it to their son upon their death. But I believe they lose ownership of their land if it is not in their possession on their death. If I steal your land then I am a thief who owns land that is not mine. But if you die before getting that land back from me, your son has no claim to it. To do so otherwise would cause to much of a problem as the we would have to deal with the descendants of the people your ancestors stole the land from, the decedents of the people their ancestors stole the land from, and so on. Its a never ending line stretching so far through history that no historian can trace it. If someone takes your land, better get it back before you die, or you family should be out of luck.

cthulhuspawn82:

Realitycrash:

cthulhuspawn82:
I think its safe to say that you can morally claim ownership and sovereignty of the land you live on and the area immediately around it, I don't think someone could build a house in the middle of an island the size of Australia and claim the whole continent belongs to him because he built there first.

Why can you claim it on the land you live on, though? What's so moral about being there "first"?
If the first generation settled an entire country (and let's assume no-one lived there before they came), then the second generation wouldn't have any moral claim to anywhere to live.
Now I know what you are thinking "Hey, wait, we got inheritance", but what makes THAT so moral? They are basically getting a piece of land that they did NOT claim first, but in fact just in merit of being a biological product of another person.
In the end, it comes down to "Because if you try to take it from me, I will fight you for it, and I'm stronger".

I say its moral to claim the land you live on, assuming its not already owned, because if someone else taking it would involve them forcibly removing you and either destroying or stealing your house. If someone wanted to build a house right next to yours however, I think that would be fine. You cant morally claim an empty lot of land adjacent to your house that you are not using.

As for inheritance. Obviously if someone owns land they can give it to their son upon their death. But I believe they lose ownership of their land if it is not in their possession on their death. If I steal your land then I am a thief who owns land that is not mine. But if you die before getting that land back from me, your son has no claim to it. To do so otherwise would cause to much of a problem as the we would have to deal with the descendants of the people your ancestors stole the land from, the decedents of the people their ancestors stole the land from, and so on. Its a never ending line stretching so far through history that no historian can trace it. If someone takes your land, better get it back before you die, or you family should be out of luck.

Sooo...:
Steal land
Assassinate former owners head of family
PROFIT
?

That seems alright by you?

Of course the Native Americans would have had the right to declare their lands... well... theirs. However, in the world of international relations, might makes right (as history has shown us). Stronger, more technologically advanced powers generally take what they need in order to serve their own interests.

To make a long story short, it would not have mattered. The Europeans, having superrior technology and being more experienced in warfare, would have just walked in and taken everything anyway.

Despite saying that, I often wonder what it would have been like if the Native population had been left alone and they had made some technological advances along the way.

Realitycrash:

cthulhuspawn82:

As for inheritance. Obviously if someone owns land they can give it to their son upon their death. But I believe they lose ownership of their land if it is not in their possession on their death. If I steal your land then I am a thief who owns land that is not mine. But if you die before getting that land back from me, your son has no claim to it. To do so otherwise would cause to much of a problem as the we would have to deal with the descendants of the people your ancestors stole the land from, the decedents of the people their ancestors stole the land from, and so on. Its a never ending line stretching so far through history that no historian can trace it. If someone takes your land, better get it back before you die, or you family should be out of luck.

Sooo...:
Steal land
Assassinate former owners head of family
PROFIT
?

That seems alright by you?

The family that was currently living on the land would probably have a claim to it. What I meant to say is that any descendents in the family would have no claim. It would be like Mexico claiming Texas because they had it first, despite the fact that Texas has not been owned by Mexico since any person living today was ever born. You cant claim a piece of land you have never owned/lived on simply because some distant ancestor of yours once owned it. Otherwise USA would have to give Texas back to Mexico, Mexico would have to give it back to whatever Native American tribe, they would have to give it back to whatever tribe they took it from, etc.

As for stealing land and killing the owners for profit, that's just the way it goes. If you steal a piece of property, and then kill everyone who has a legal claim to that property, it's safe to assume you wont be facing any claimants for that property. You would get in trouble for theft and murder however, but once the property has been handed down to your son, who has never committed theft or murder, then he is in the clear with his new piece of property.

Danyal:

Shadowstar38:
Yes. They would have every right to. It's their land after all.

America is property of the Native Americans because they were the first human beings who set foot on the American continent?

I'm thinking about North America, btw. South America had densely populated cities, but AFAIK, North America was rather... empty.

the first humans that set foot on american continnet was siberian drifters, so by your logic american now belongs to russians.

North america had cities. many of them. its jsut that they were made of wood and wood burns real fast whne your invading european.

Native amricans under current laws system would have had a right to deny europeans acess, to which europeans would ahve responded with war and hoclocaust.
Native americans under the laws of the time had no rights because they were not human. to claim otherwise was to go beyond the divine power of the pope.

Strazdas:

Danyal:

Shadowstar38:
Yes. They would have every right to. It's their land after all.

America is property of the Native Americans because they were the first human beings who set foot on the American continent?

I'm thinking about North America, btw. South America had densely populated cities, but AFAIK, North America was rather... empty.

the first humans that set foot on american continnet was siberian drifters, so by your logic american now belongs to russians.

North america had cities. many of them. its jsut that they were made of wood and wood burns real fast whne your invading european.

Native amricans under current laws system would have had a right to deny europeans acess, to which europeans would ahve responded with war and hoclocaust.
Native americans under the laws of the time had no rights because they were not human. to claim otherwise was to go beyond the divine power of the pope.

Bullshit. Firstly, that was not the stance of the Catholic Church. Eventually. Secondly, Protestants did not follow those rules and were just as big of dicks. In fact, protestants used the initial mistreatment of native americans by Catholics and their lack of acknowledgement of the souls of Native Americans as arguments against Catholocism. They then went on to be bigger dicks. Do not give them excuses they do not deserve. They were greedy imperialist monsters going against the morals of even their own time to do terrible things.

Revnak:

Strazdas:

Danyal:

America is property of the Native Americans because they were the first human beings who set foot on the American continent?

I'm thinking about North America, btw. South America had densely populated cities, but AFAIK, North America was rather... empty.

the first humans that set foot on american continnet was siberian drifters, so by your logic american now belongs to russians.

North america had cities. many of them. its jsut that they were made of wood and wood burns real fast whne your invading european.

Native amricans under current laws system would have had a right to deny europeans acess, to which europeans would ahve responded with war and hoclocaust.
Native americans under the laws of the time had no rights because they were not human. to claim otherwise was to go beyond the divine power of the pope.

Bullshit. Firstly, that was not the stance of the Catholic Church. Eventually. Secondly, Protestants did not follow those rules and were just as big of dicks. In fact, protestants used the initial mistreatment of native americans by Catholics and their lack of acknowledgement of the souls of Native Americans as arguments against Catholocism. They then went on to be bigger dicks. Do not give them excuses they do not deserve. They were greedy imperialist monsters going against the morals of even their own time to do terrible things.

The church split the americans in two. one for spanyards, one for the portugeese. later other nations joined obviuosly. if you think pope does not represent church, fine, but he did back then. This is how pope solved the conflick of "those spanyards are coming into our continent".
Im not saying that religion is at fault for it, im saying that back then they woudl ahve invaded regardless.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked