Thoughts on the recent news of the Christian missionary killed by tribespeople on a remote island near India, and it's implications for and connection to the voluntaryist property ethic, i.e. "natural law,"
I agree that property is a universal concept. Even animals are territorial. Defending a territory and family is basic survival. Yet like anything there is a balance needed if we want to live in peace. Where do you draw that line which says you've gone too far by deciding everything is yours if you just take it? These debates always bring up so many grey areas, don't they.
Recently I was learning about the aboriginal tribes in Australia when the first settlers came in. Many were cannibals and, naturally, saw their settlers as food. Many settlers were quite peaceful and tried to trade with them and learn from them, but you can imagine that they saw red when they started killing and eating their friends. This was when parties of westerners started going out and wiping out tribes.
On the one hand you could say that the aboriginals drove them to this, but on the other you can say that the settlers did come onto their territory, in the same way we can say, if you don't want to be killed by a shark, don't swim where they live. To us, cannibalism was unacceptable, to them it was simply survival. The settlers weren't aware that they were cannibals at the time of settling, but then they were stepping somewhere they didn't necessarily belong.
Thank you, @minismallholding. Yes, like I say in the vid, there are always gray areas. However, the state is a giant, chaotic, bloodstained gray area, and instead of attempting to base societies on that “divine right” or “majority vote” hocus pocus, the only objective means by which violent conflict can be minimized is to have a universalizable property norm in any given society. There will always be gray areas and violence, as you point out, but it is not necessary to make these gray areas and violence the foundational structure upon which the society is to be built.
Objective realities such as individual self-ownership and scarcity of rivalrous resources works much better.
The feeling is mutual, by the way, and your comment on the Aboriginal people of Australia has got me thinking as well.
Sorry, I don't do videos, I just don't like it. I reacted to the headline. If you said differently in the video, than congratulations on the clickbait.
If not, change your headline, because it implies that the kill was done because of the tribes property concept..
You say in the headlien that property is not a waestern concept, but universal, and you refer to the misionary.
Why else would the missionary be in there if not as an example for "see, the first part is true"??
I agree that property is a universal concept. Even animals are territorial. Defending a territory and family is basic survival. Yet like anything there is a balance needed if we want to live in peace. Where do you draw that line which says you've gone too far by deciding everything is yours if you just take it? These debates always bring up so many grey areas, don't they.
Recently I was learning about the aboriginal tribes in Australia when the first settlers came in. Many were cannibals and, naturally, saw their settlers as food. Many settlers were quite peaceful and tried to trade with them and learn from them, but you can imagine that they saw red when they started killing and eating their friends. This was when parties of westerners started going out and wiping out tribes.
On the one hand you could say that the aboriginals drove them to this, but on the other you can say that the settlers did come onto their territory, in the same way we can say, if you don't want to be killed by a shark, don't swim where they live. To us, cannibalism was unacceptable, to them it was simply survival. The settlers weren't aware that they were cannibals at the time of settling, but then they were stepping somewhere they didn't necessarily belong.
Thanks for anther thought provoker.
Thank you, @minismallholding. Yes, like I say in the vid, there are always gray areas. However, the state is a giant, chaotic, bloodstained gray area, and instead of attempting to base societies on that “divine right” or “majority vote” hocus pocus, the only objective means by which violent conflict can be minimized is to have a universalizable property norm in any given society. There will always be gray areas and violence, as you point out, but it is not necessary to make these gray areas and violence the foundational structure upon which the society is to be built.
Objective realities such as individual self-ownership and scarcity of rivalrous resources works much better.
The feeling is mutual, by the way, and your comment on the Aboriginal people of Australia has got me thinking as well.
Hah?
Just because there was someone killed does not mean the killers have the concept of property, or even believed they protected the property.
そう言う事言ってましたか、俺？
ちゃんと見てね、この動画。
Sorry, I don't do videos, I just don't like it. I reacted to the headline. If you said differently in the video, than congratulations on the clickbait.
If not, change your headline, because it implies that the kill was done because of the tribes property concept..
Clickbait?
And no, it may imply that to your perception, but that was not my intent.
I do have a good idea about how to fix it, though.
You say in the headlien that property is not a waestern concept, but universal, and you refer to the misionary.
Why else would the missionary be in there if not as an example for "see, the first part is true"??
I wanted to let folks know I would be talking about the missionary story.