Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


Oh, I see, it was the disease that did it, not the genocidal campaign of wars against the uncivilized savages that had no conception of property rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

The major cause of depopulation of natives in the Americas was due to disease. This is not disputed by any historian. From the wiki article for convenience

[ QUOTE ]
The earliest European immigrants offered two principal explanations for the population decline of the American natives. The first was the brutal practices of the Spanish conquistadores, as recorded by the Spanish themselves, most notably by the Dominican friar Bartolomé de Las Casas, whose writings vividly depict atrocities committed on the natives by the Spanish. The second explanation was a perceived divine approval, in that God had removed the natives as part of His divine plan in order to make way for a new Christian civilization. Many natives of the Americas also understood their troubles in terms of religious or supernatural causes. Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives.[5]

Disease began to kill immense numbers of indigenous Americans soon after Europeans and Africans began to arrive in the New World, bringing with them the infectious diseases of the Old World. One reason this death toll was overlooked (or downplayed) is that disease, according to the widely held theory, raced ahead of European immigration in many areas, thus often killing off a sizable portion of the population before European observations (and thus written records) were made. Many European immigrants who arrived after the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of American natives assumed that the natives had always been few in number. The scope of the epidemics over the years was enormous, killing millions of people—in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe."[6]

[/ QUOTE ]

WIKILINK

For some perspective on raw numbers

The massacre at woulded knee where 300 Native Americans were killed
and The Trail of tears where 2,000 - 8,000 Cherokee died.
and
custer's last stand at little bighorn where less than 2,000 total took place in the battle combined.

Individual battles, massacres and skirmishes are not enough to wipe out 50 million people. The genocide that occurred during the 19th century was the final nail, but was limited in scope when compared to the numbers who died without ever seeing a white person.

Back to the original point, which is that the majority of western settlers had no need to steal the land, or to violently evict or murder to get it. It had already been emptied out by smallpox.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
English common law dealing with land ownership was based on the feudal system in which the monarch owned all the land but allowed favored individuals the use of it, as tenants, in exchange for service.

[/ QUOTE ]

In effect, the king's rule was based on the fact he owned the land. It was what allowed him collect rents (later called taxes), and extract services from vassals. The services were ordinarily promises to provide armed men, which the king could call upon to fight foreign enemies, or to deal with peasants, if they got out of line.

The whole system was supported by the labor of the peasants, since the nobles and their vassals did not work (although they did produce a lot of violence.)

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
There IS a difference between the king and the landlord (a very BIG difference, imo)

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the difference beteen the king and the landlord?

[ QUOTE ]
Take the king's castle, for instance--assuming the king amassed his fortune, his land, his castle through violence, taxes, theft, etc, then clearly is castle isn't legitimately his property. But the choices for who legitimately owns the castle aren't only 'the king' and 'nobody'. The most logical choice is the people who have actually homesteaded the castle (other than the king). So, the squires, knights, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those people are only there because they're friends, family, or employees of the king, aren't they?

In other words, aren't these the people who made the king's rule possible in the first place, right?

I mean, he didn't go out and collect taxes and put down peasant rebellions personally, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, in today's society government property and large corporations wouldn't just go to the highest bidder--if they are not legitimately the property of the people who claim to own them currently, then they clearly are the property of the people who work on them, use them, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about all large corporations, or only those that have government contracts?

[ QUOTE ]
Following the above, there is no reason to assume that a huge piece of land (e.g., an entire kingdom) would be auctioned off as one piece. In cases where, say, government 'property' is to be given up by the government and there are no legitimate claims to the property, the property is now unowned, abandoned, and can be used by whomever homesteads there first (so, in other words, NOT whoever pays the most).

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the criteria for determining whose claims are legitimate? And how do you decide (or how is it decided) what is necessary to homestead a building or park or a road, or whatever?

[ QUOTE ]
Again, someone who legitimately gained lots of $$$ will still be able to get some land and property

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the limit for the amount of property a rich person would be allowed to acquire?

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
The major cause of depopulation of natives in the Americas was due to disease. This is not disputed by any historian.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I think you are being revisionist. The same wiki article will note that low numbers for the amount of indigineous people killed in the Americas by European invaders is between 2 and 15 million with high estimates around 100 million.

I'm not arguing that the introduction of all kinds of microbes that people had never been exposed to (after all Europe had recently been through a number of epidemics at that point in history) didn't also cause large scale death, but claiming that Europeans basically just pitched their tents and staked their claims to empty land is simply not true.

but of course, societies that have highly evolved methods of reciprocity and gift giving and don't believe in private property make bad trading partners

"They are so artless and free with all they possess, that no one would believe it without having seen it. Of anything they have, if you ask them for it, they never say no; rather they invite the person to share it, and show as much love as if they were giving their hearts; and whether the thing be of value or small price, at once they are content with whatever little thing of whatever kind may be given them." -C Columbus-

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the difference beteen the king and the landlord?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free society, a landlord would be someone who rents out their property to a person who voluntarily agrees to use it.
A king is someone who taxes people (or collects 'rent') to live on property that he doesn't legitimately own.

Basically, there's a big difference in my mind because a king will always be a violator of others' rights, while a some landlords might profit because he/she takes part in systematic oppression, but some might not.

[ QUOTE ]
Those people are only there because they're friends, family, or employees of the king, aren't they?

In other words, aren't these the people who made the king's rule possible in the first place, right?

I mean, he didn't go out and collect taxes and put down peasant rebellions personally, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps my example wasn't very good, since I guess the people in the castle are 'on the king's side'. But you seem to be ignoring my point, which is that the king has no legitimate claim to ownership of his stuff if he (or his servants, army, etc.) use violence, theft, etc to get it.

So the king's land might be claimed rightfully by the people working it (the peasants), and his castle might be considered 'abandoned' and claimed by whomever homesteads it.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about all large corporations, or only those that have government contracts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't all large corporations get a fair amount of profit due to govt subsidies, regulations, tax breaks, etc? As I've stated elsewhere, companies that get the majority of their profits via state coercion should be turned over to the workers.
So, probably not ALL large corporations, but certainly more than a few.

[ QUOTE ]
What are the criteria for determining whose claims are legitimate? And how do you decide (or how is it decided) what is necessary to homestead a building or park or a road, or whatever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideally different communities might have different views on homesteading, rent, interest, etc so there needn't be one answer for the entire world. But I take a standard Austro-libertarian view on homesteading.

[ QUOTE ]
What's the limit for the amount of property a rich person would be allowed to acquire?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since I don't beleive in coercion and aggression, I don't think anyone has the right to use force to stop someone from acquiring property.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I think you are being revisionist. The same wiki article will note that low numbers for the amount of indigineous people killed in the Americas by European invaders is between 2 and 15 million with high estimates around 100 million.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those high estimates are including disease. The lower estimate cited in the wiki article from 2-15 million is for 1492- X (i don't know if he used a cutoff) and from the context sounds like he is talking about North south and central American Indians.

Again the most relevant portion of the article is here

[ QUOTE ]
One reason this death toll was overlooked (or downplayed) is that disease, according to the widely held theory, raced ahead of European immigration in many areas, thus often killing off a sizable portion of the population before European observations (and thus written records) were made. Many European immigrants who arrived after the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of American natives assumed that the natives had always been few in number.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, i am not trying to say that none of the settlers killed or drove Indians off land so they could take it, but in the land in general was very sparsely populated (more so when you consider a lot of the plains Indians were seasonally nomadic meaning it was very likely for a settler to show up on tribal hunting grounds with no Indian presence) and there was no need for these actions.