Study: Brains of liberals & Conservatives may work differently

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
People didn't need state intervention to hunt buffalos to near extinction and deprive a people of a natural resource they depended on. But wave your hands and blame the state for everything. (And I'm not a proponent of the state.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware that you're not a proponent of the State. And I'm not sure why you're accusing me of 'handwaving', since historically (and today) the State has worked with wealthy elites to push people off of their land, use their resources, etc. (eg, sweatshops--much of the land that the international megacorps use for their sweatshop factories was forcibly taken by the State from the people who rightfully worked them. i think this case is similar to many that you've brought up in that it isn't just the State that's the problem, or just big business owning land that's the problem, but both of them reinforcing each other).

In any case, if the buffalo was a natural resource that people were depending on, it seems to suggest that people (who were there before the business got there) were already using the buffalo, using the land, etc. So it would seem to me that the business that came and used up the resources were doing so in a way that clearly violated the rights of the people who were already there.
So let's forget about the State for a minute; we'll say in this instance (as I'm sure was common) there was no active State involvement on either side. The problem I have with your point is that it isn't at all clear *land ownership* is the problem; the problem seems to me to be that certain peoples' rightful claims to land have been ignored (the people using the buffalo and the land before business got there and used them up). If we don't want to call this a problem brought on by the State, that's fine--but it's still not clear that the problem is inherent in owning land, period.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct - which means that the alternative subjective opinions must be arbitrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

But some cases of 'being impacted' aren't cases of aggression (as in my example). So even if lots of people were homophobic (we'll say a healthy majority), trying to stop a gay couple from being married would still be an unwaranted use of force.

That said, I'm not sure how important a point all this is, since people could form communities that accepted gay marriage, and others could form communities with opposing views.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
People didn't need state intervention to hunt buffalos to near extinction and deprive a people of a natural resource they depended on. But wave your hands and blame the state for everything. (And I'm not a proponent of the state.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, what a goalpost move. Are the people *entitled* to buffalo, or rain forrests, or some metal in the ground? If they are, then they *own* them. If they don't, then they don't have any basis for complaining that someone else got to them first.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
People didn't need state intervention to hunt buffalos to near extinction and deprive a people of a natural resource they depended on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure? How do you think those people got to the areas where the buffalo were? And how was the security for these people slaughtering buffalo provided if they were attacked by the rightful owners of the land?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This assumes that I *should* have some say in how other people manage their affairs. I reject that. Is the fact that I can't tell my neighbor what he can and cannot watch on TV "undemocratic"?

[/ QUOTE ]

This comparison is invalid. The supposition is that you *should* have some say in how other people manage their affairs when the way they manage their affairs has an impact on you. Since everything everyone does has some impact on everyone else, we're left needing to draw a line somewhere saying "everything on this side of line is significant enough to worry about, everything on that side of the line is not." If what your neighbor watches on TV is on the "irrelevant" side of the line, the there is no need to force him to watch or not watch anything. Acknowledging that you should have a say in some of the things he does is not the same as saying that you should have a say in everything he does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could it not be said that by your neighbors watching certain tv programs, more of such programs would be put out while less might cater to you?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it not be said that by your neighbors watching certain tv programs, more of such programs would be put out while less might cater to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly. The degree to which this is a problem for you is totally subjective. Does that mean mediation is hopeless? I don't think so.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem I have with your point is that it isn't at all clear *land ownership* is the problem; the problem seems to me to be that certain peoples' rightful claims to land have been ignored (the people using the buffalo and the land before business got there and used them up). If we don't want to call this a problem brought on by the State, that's fine--but it's still not clear that the problem is inherent in owning land, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, could it be said the natives "owned" the buffalo and the land that they were using? Even if they did not believe in or care about property rights as we know it, they should still retain those rights I think.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem I have with your point is that it isn't at all clear *land ownership* is the problem; the problem seems to me to be that certain peoples' rightful claims to land have been ignored (the people using the buffalo and the land before business got there and used them up). If we don't want to call this a problem brought on by the State, that's fine--but it's still not clear that the problem is inherent in owning land, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, could it be said the natives "owned" the buffalo and the land that they were using? Even if they did not believe in or care about property rights as we know it, they should still retain those rights I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent beliefs in property rights I think they could still have a legitimate right to war against being deprived of the use of the land/fauna, but that wouldn't be the same as a claim of ownership rights. Conversely they would not have a right to deny someone else use of the same land/fauna. The NAs did not universally disavow property rights by any means. They sold land quite often, and if they didn't believe in ownership they would have nothing to sell.

There also seems to be a glib acceptance of the "innocence of the Native Americans" and the guilt of the big bad invading colonials. There is plenty of guilt to share, with some tribes joining the British against the colonials in the RW, and some tribes attacking settlers who bought land from other tribes without any other provocation.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
The NAs did not universally disavow property rights by any means. They sold land quite often, and if they didn't believe in ownership they would have nothing to sell.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there were many different tribes and many differing responses.

[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of guilt to share

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely, much like a lot of things involving humans. It's hard to find a balanced account.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I think they could still have a legitimate right to war against being deprived of the use of the land/fauna, but that wouldn't be the same as a claim of ownership rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what most Austrians define as property rights; if you can legitimately use force to protect something that you use, you own it.

[ QUOTE ]
Conversely they would not have a right to deny someone else use of the same land/fauna.

[/ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense because of the scarcity of the land/fauna. And how would such a situation not devolve into the tragedy of the commons?