[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Marsha, Craig,

I reread Craig's reply when Marsha posted, and I noticed something I wanted to
comment on (other than the honest "... to each according to his/her worth").

Craig cites Rand, "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of
individual rights, including property rights..."

I'd argue that you can strike the "individual rights" right out of there. The
Indians, remember, were masters of "individual rights". In Indian society,
"freedom" was above all else, which underscores two characterists of their
values "unfitted" for modern life, "non-punctuality" and "non-subordination to
authority". And yet they were hardly "capitalistic".

What really matters in capitalism is "property rights". We subordinate our
freedoms voluntarily so as to enter into a social contract agreeing (among
other things) to respect each other's "property". Once done, our individual
freedoms may, in fact, be lessened. I can't walk across your property, for
example. Platt's example of "days of for vision quests" smacks of this LOSS of
freedom, in a society that demands our subordination.

But if I'm wrong here, with the exception of property rights, what "individual
rights" do we have that the Indian did not? What about "socialist Europe"? What
"individual rights" do WE have, that THEY do not? Again, my guess is that your
answer can only be variations of "property", including "right to keep MY
money". Can you think of any other?

"Individual rights", I'd argue, are not a characteristic of capitalism, but of
democracy (or republics), and even there it is where "social force" is used to
enfore these rights vis a vis a "social contract", that relates to capitalism
through the section on "property rights".

Arlo