So what? The universal right to freedom from aggression doesn't imply that "the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aboriginal residents". It means that the Aboriginal residents had no right to try and enforce collective property ownership principles on the British (or their own people for that matter).
"The Aboriginal residents had no right to try and enforce collective property ownership principles on the British" Yes, and I'm sure we'll condemn them when they invade Britain. Your problem is that you don't recognise this is an old problem amongst classical Liberals and Libertarians, and it that takes honesty to accept. It dates back further than British occupation of Australia.
All I have argued is that it is only when we recognise and respect individual property rights that we enhance our individual liberty. A collectivist system places the needs of the whole above the individual. Now that's really great, until the needs of the whole override the needs of the minority, or the needs of the whole tribe in the West override the needs of the whole tribe in the East, or the needs of the 99% override the needs of the 1%. The problem with justifying needs based upon the collective is that at some point the collective becomes either the majority or it becomes the minority with the most clout and imposes its view upon those who are not in the collective. The Aboriginal collective system of ownership gave scant regard for individual rights. It may have suited their hunter/gatherer lifestyle, but it was nothing more than a waypoint in human evolution that benefited a few at the expense of others. Most people reading my original post in context would understand that I was trying to explain that a system of property rights based upon communal ownership nullifies any individual rights to property. It's not difficult to understand, either you own stuff individually or the group has a preceding claim, it's mine or it's everybody's, that's my car or it belongs to the collective, it's my boat or it belongs to the party. How difficult is that?
Well, that is an irrelevant diversion. I think my original quote in the other thread shows that I do recognise that this is part of the difference between Classical Liberals and Voluntarists.
IS the above not a variation on one of the older post-justifications for land acquisition from the native inhabitants? e.g. To demonstrate the variety of views on this topic, some people (classical Liberalist, not Libertarian) are more straightforward when commenting on a certain Libertarian school of thought that held up Aboriginal society as an ideal rather than as a failing:
Wonderful that the libertarian view is that everyone has a right to property. As long as you own it first. And you don't want to subdivide it as much as you want so laws and more govt regs is needed. That might hurt the rights of existing property holders. At the expense of non property owners. But open borders are great. Especially for property holders, whose rights are protected by govt.
yes it is wonderful So you are suggesting everyone has a right to own property Now you are drifting into fuckheadsville, which is pretty normal for you. The rights of property owner are protected, or at least should be protected in the free market. We've been down this path a million times. Stop trolling. Under a free market everyone's property rights are protected. Stop trolling. Precisely. And if our property rights are not protected then you can only blame your beloved government. Stop trolling dickhead.
Anyone who thinks that the Aboriginal society was anarchist-Libertarian is mislabelling a political philosophy or is delusional. Saying that, based on his post it should be obvious that shiney's position on property rights does not mean "the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aboriginal residents". Indeed, even the minarchist-Libertarian (ie classical liberal) argument in the post does not justify violent occupation - all it does is state that in the presence of illiberal nation states, a strong liberty-minded nation state is preferable.
Your outright refusal, multiple times, to address Shiny's statement directly clearly demonstrates your position on the matter. Here it is again:
As it appears you have reading comprehension difficulties, I'll spell it out for you: There is no freedom from aggression upon both person and property under a communal system of ownership. That doesn't mean the British are vindicated for their actions, it doesn't mean I like chocolate eclairs, it doesn't mean I'm a member of the KKK, it doesn't mean I know who will win this years Melbourne Cup or any other fantasy you may have circling in your mind at the time that you care to credit me with - it simply means there is no freedom from aggression upon both person and property under a communal system of ownership. Now that's not so hard to understand is it? Now I'd kindly ask you to stop attributing untruths to my statements.
I have no sympathy for China. If the citizens there don't like what is going on they need to revolt and fix the problems. I can't follow what you all are debating in this thread, but anyone who feels sad for China is deluded. Their gov does many bad things to its citizens- reportedly harvests organs from prisoners (to sell on the black market) and even worse. I think the reason China is pushing its people to buy PM's over the past few years is so they can take them when the time is right, probably some day when they decide to incorporate PM's into their monetary system somehow. If the billions of citizens there can't stand up to the gov they deserve what they get- same with NK and other such places. Isn't there a saying that the populace has the govt they deserve, or something to that effect. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's true. The true test for whether a gov is bad or good isn't how said gov treats other countries, it is how they treat their own citizens. Just my opinion. Jim
I am only repeating what you wrote and pointing out the logical inconsistencies with your attempted defense of those statements. On the one hand you claim that it is morally justified to negate any freedom from aggression against a people who live under a system of communal ownership, and on the other hand you claim that it doesn't vindicate (why not say it "doesn't justify"?) the actions of the British against the aboriginal population of Australia. Again, this is what you wrote. This is where you claimed your view was morally justified.
If your logic requires a drug-addled mind to perceived any sense in it then pardon me if I skip that suggestion. Also, your earlier attempted defense that necessitated you calling fiatphoney a "trolling dickhead" really wasn't that convincing.
Except that his morally justified view isn't that it is "justified to negate any freedom from aggression against a people who live under a system of communal ownership". It's that the idea of communal ownership overrides people's fundamental rights and that these rights are morally justified. Or to put it another way, by virtue of nature humans have the universal right of self-ownership and any consequences from this (namely the right to life, liberty and property) are morally justified. The socialist ideas of communal ownership override this universal right and consequently (one way or another) override the right to life and liberty and hence, self-ownership.
So the Chinese have been buying up agricultural/farming properties in Australia for at least 4 years, have any of the fears about exploitation of the natural resources materialised? Or are the opponents of foreign investment just blowing it out of their arse as usual? @ Big A.D., when you get back online I just want to draw your attention to http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-888655.html#p888655 , with all the unnecessary crap this thread has seen you are likely to not have noticed my post.
It seems the cashed up Chinese businessman may just be the best person to decide how his area of land is managed if they are wanting to meet Chinese domestic demand: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...der-australia-enjoys-new-boom-in-china-demand The economic return on good farming practices is likely to be higher than the return on trashing once productive land.
