[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[craigerb at comcast.net]

Arlo,
Rand turns your argument on its head--it is property rights that can be struck from the definition of Capitalism.  She argues that "property rights" is ultimately an oxymoron.  Property does not have rights.  It is individuals that have rights over property.  [She does agree with your point (I'm paraphrasing) that whatever economic rights are part of Capitalism are essentially political rights.]
The essential economic rights of Capitalism include the right to own property, the right to voluntary trade of property, right to free exchange of information regarding property, freedom of economic association, etc.
I'm not an expert on Amerindian society.  Did the individual have a right to disagree with decisions made by the tribe, to accumulate separate property, leave the tribe (taking their share of accumulated wealth?), etc.?
My short answer is:  if society A is capitalistic & society B is not, then the only differences in rights that follow are differences in economic rights.
Craig      

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu> 

> 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 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list 
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> Archives: 
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/