Rather than continue to derail the Healthcare and "freedom" thread, I'll respond to suzzer99 here. Maybe some others will be interested in the discussion.

Not enough information. I don't think a blood relationship, in and of itself, is enough to establish a superior claim. So with only this information, I don't think they deserve half the county back. Under other circumstances, I think they would deserve it back.

I have no doubt that many Indians were brutally forced off their land.

If specific Indians can show they have retained the rights to specific pieces of property, I think they have a good case. I don't think Indians as an ethnic group deserve unspecified amounts of land just because bad stuff happened to their ancestors.

That may be, but they should have done something to establish ownership. No one would claim that a man owns the ocean because he goes fishing once a year.

I don't think this is that much of a problem. The people that can show valid claim to particular pieces of property should get it back. Those that can't, won't.

I don't quite understand the bolded part. If I have a deed to property that was taken from my now dead great grandfather, do I get to enrich myself at the expense of someone who fairly purchased that land and is living on it?

Again, I don't think you realize just how many clear cut examples of Indians with legit treaties being forced off their land under duress.

The Cherokees were given large swaths of north Georgia in legit US and state treaties, then forced out with the authority of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, when gold was discovered in Georgia and the Supreme Court refused to hear the Cherokees' case. Are you ready to kick out a large chunk of the current residents of N. Georgia?



Or maybe we could give them Oklahoma, which was subsequently taken away from them by homesteaders.

We could give them parts of Arizona and New Mexico because there are prime plots of farm land there

If you have the deed, you're not being unjustly enriched. Sucks for the current resident, but the same is true of those who unwittingly buy stolen merchandise and then have to fork it back over to the rightful owner. I think this is why title insurance would likely be part of an AC world.

You're going to need a hell of a court system to handle all these land disputes going back 100s of years. Small govt ftl. What if someone doesn't agree with the ruling (let's say they think the judge or jury or whatever was paid off)? Ok to take up arms against the coercive govt?

Let me be perfectly clear. I'm well aware of this. I know about the Indian Removal Act of 1830. I know what the Trail of Tears is. I am not disputing that Indians were kicked out.

Given that, how is it relevant to what I said?

1. The U.S. government must honor all treaties and return all land stolen from Native American governments.

2. The U.S. government must adequately compensate those who currently are in possession of that land.

Piece of cake.

What does this have to do with AC?

apples n oranges. the example was grandfathers land so a more honest comparison would be comparing stolen merchandise two genartions back in time IMO.

What gov't?

The comparison I was making was that it sucks for the unwitting non-owner when it is revealed that he doesn't rightfully own, be it land or merchandise.

Who's going to settle and enforce land disputes?

Well at some point if AC-land is ever going to happen (Which you all think there's a chance it will right? Otherwise we're just jerking each other off here.), then somehow or another society is going to have to move forward with nothing but property rights and some protection from personal injury, which will be administered by whatever you're calling your minimal govt required for the task. Do I have that roughly right?

If so, then why should a property deed issued to you 10 years ago by the now defunct US govt be worth any more than a demonstrable claim by an Indian tribe that they were forced off that same land 150 years ago?

I'm confused as to how people who lived 150 years ago are making claims on lands? We all agree that technology will be 100x better in AC land than it is in Statist land, but I doubt we'll be resurrecting mofos.

Courts, probably.

Ok you're definitely being willfully obtuse now. I've seen your other posts and I know you're not this out of it. "Courts" are going to come force me off my land if they make a ruling I don't like and I refuse to leave? Or maybe the courts would have some kind of an enforcement division. Which might need to at least be armed to defend itself, or you know... enforce. And unless we expect everyone in these courts to be volunteers and the buildings to maintain themselves, we're probably have to collect some kind of general fee from the populace to pay for their ongoing function. Gee, what does that sound like?

Ahhhh. So there's the rub. No claims for descendants? So when your Dad dies and you are out of the country I can just take his land?

Dammit I'm really wading into the tortured logic now. What have I brought on myself?

What does me being out of the country have to do with anything

Did my Dad leave the land to me? If not, can you demonstrate any claim at all on the land?

eh, we've done this so many times suzzer. Read this please and stop babbling.

You can't see any similarity to my great-great-grandfather being forced off his land at gunpoint, and my claim to my father's land even if he forgot to make out a will?

Tortured logic? You are now willfully stealing that which you don't own from me. I will do everything in my power to get it back from you. If I fail, I wouldn't expect that my my ascendent 3 generations from now would have a claim against the new owners that presumably bought it in good faith. If he did, then surely he'd have to reimburse the purchaser.

I don't think you have a claim on your father's land just because he's your father. I should have made that more clear, I guess. I would have more of a claim on my father's land than you would not because of blood relation, but because I've worked and lived on it for 18 years and you've worked and lived on it for zero years and in fact have never even seen it nor do you even know where it is etcetcetc.

I said probably because I can't know for sure, but a court-like system makes sense to me. I don't know how the court would be funded, but I doubt it would be some sort of geographic-based tax.


Before we get dragged into AC court systems, are we in agreement on the issue that started this thread?

Suzzer, there is a difference between stealing property and selling the stolen goods vs. unwittingly purchasing stolen property and reselling it.

Now, if you're talking about Federal owned lands that the Indians once had title to then I'm all for giving the land back or anything else that is equitable so long as the thieving federal government doesn't keep it.

Ok, so you don't even try to offer your own arguments. Just offer a link where I have to dig way down to find this gem:

So lol good luck Indians. You can always ostracize the residents of N. Georgia and publish bad things about them when they ignore the court's ruling to give their land back to you.



I did find lots more fun ridiculous assertions like:

Oh sure, we've all seen how well insurance works when you can wait to buy it until you think you might need it. Real solid grasp of the nature of adverse selection here. Rothbard should probably just stick to the thriving markets in children he's spent so much time envisioning.


Please explain to me how gov't intervention has prevented this from happening in the hills of Afghanistan or the pirate havens of Somalia. Please, indulge me.


Right. Just like when firefighters used to get paid by the fire. They would wait on the fire hydrant with a barrel over it until they got paid. Often dickering firefighting crews would fight each other while the building burned down. Let's devolve back to that please.


This is your freaking philosophy? I mean just wow. This is much much dumber than I even imagined. I thought there would at least be some kind of reasonable logic other than a bunch of hand-waving with almost zero evidence or historical precedent to back it up. I mean barely a sentence goes by without a direct contradiction of everything we know about human nature and and everything we've seen of human experience. If this really speaks truth to you, then I'm not even sure why I'm trying to argue because you are on another planet.