[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Craig]
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.

[Arlo]
Hi Craig. Okay, I see the point. But I think its semantic. So I'll rephrase,
capitalism is based on the use of government to enforce property ownership.

"Individual rights" are, of course, far more involving than ownership of
property, which is why I reject it as some exclusive domain of capitalism. The
Indian, for example, had "free speech". The Iroquios Confederacy was based on
democratic participation. This is not a rejection of "property ownership" by
any means, it is merely an honest appraisal of what it is. Namely, one part of
the social contract where the government is asked to police "ownership" of
things.

One argument, for example, for the wealthy paying more taxes rests on the notion
that the wealthy "use" government services far more than the poor. The Federal
Courts, for example, spend 80-85% of their time on corporate law, intellectual
copyright, and other cases and issues surrounding matters related to the
wealthier of us. When was the last time you used the US Patent Office? When was
the last time you relied on federal agencies to enforce your patents with their
guns? The police forces spend nearly all their time (outside emergence
responses) to policing and enforcing property ownership (in the cities,
however, this is not true, policing drug and other gang-related crime is how
our men in blue spend their days).

[Craig]
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.

[Arlo]
Agree. It is on this central premise (asking government to enforce ownership)
that capitalism is built.

[Craig]
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.?

[Arlo]
The tribes of the American Indian were different in many ways, so "rights"
(defined as the social contract) varied from tribe to tribe. As to the right to
disagree, the general answer is "sure". The Indian value system was built
(again, generally) on "freedom". Indeed, one value that Platt finds "unfitted"
for modern life is their reluctance to "subordinate to authority". Many tribes
were democratic (although some were admittedly open to male participation in
tribal matters). I have no factual information specifically on whether or not
someone could "leave" the tribe whenever they liked, but I can't see any reason
to think they couldn't. There was no police, no courts, if you left, why would
they care? 

Your other "rights" mentioned above are not concerned with "individual freedom",
but with "economics". The ability to "accumulate wealth" was not valued by
Amerindians. As Pirsig said, the Chief was often the poorest man in the tribe.
The did not see "land", for example, as something that could be "owned". This
drove the Europeans mad, of course.

As I said, property ownership is actually a mutual social decision to
subordinate freedom to ownership. I can buy a ploth of land, say down by the
river, and put up a fence with "No Trespassing" signs. To the Indian, such a
thing would be a revolting restriction on individual freedom. But, we agree to
it, because by giving you my acceptance to keep my off your land, I get from
the contract the ability to keep you off mine. We both sacrifice our freedom to
gain economically.

The same goes to Platt's condemnation of the Indians non-punctuality. To the
Indian, having the freedom to "take days off for vision quests" or to go and do
whatever one wanted, runs akin to modern life that demands we subordinate
ourselves to the authority that tells us when we can do certain things, and
when we can't. We do this voluntarily, of course, because again we sacrifice
freedom to gain economically.

[Craig]
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.

[Arlo]
Agree. Thanks for the dialogue, Craig.

Arlo