Humanity's Greatest Minds

[baldgye]

I'm not sure she wanted to exterminate them, but rather just take their land. I'm not entirely sure how that'd work, but still, I don't think she actively said to kill them.

However, her reason behind it was wrong. She claimed that Native Americans didn't have a right to the land because they hadn't settled it - which isn't right. While many tribes were nomadic, there were settlements created by Native Americans. The most prominent one is from the Pueblos who built a sizeable city in a cliff face. Much of this came from flawed anthropological thinking of the time though and some of the most well-respected anthropologists of the late 1800's and early 1900's often thought native people were "savages" for various reasons. It led to a ton of ethnocentric fieldwork.

To be fair, Rand probably wasn’t really into the idea of social housing projects... so what did she expect them to do if all their lands had been taken?

I think it’s a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to. And if someone asks you if genocide is a good idea and you don’t say; ‘nah’ questions are gona be asked

 

[Danoff]

I’m not sure about needing to know her work more. I read Anthem (as a toe in the water) and it’s pure garbage, to be polite. If the rest of her work is of much higher quality though I’m open to giving it a go.

Can you elaborate on your second point? Because you seem to be asking me what’s wrong with being a racist? ...and I’m not sure that’s what you meant.. I.e;
What’s wrong with murdering all the black individuals ???

Now you're making a similar mistake with me that you were making with her. Attributing some sort of strange motive to a precise comment. I'm not asking you what's wrong with murder. I'm asking you why genocide is a worse crime than the murder of the individuals in the genocide. Genocide is bad because of each individual murder.

I'm not sure she wanted to exterminate them, but rather just take their land. I'm not entirely sure how that'd work, but still, I don't think she actively said to kill them.

However, her reason behind it was wrong. She claimed that Native Americans didn't have a right to the land because they hadn't settled it - which isn't right. While many tribes were nomadic, there were settlements created by Native Americans. The most prominent one is from the Pueblos who built a sizeable city in a cliff face. Much of this came from flawed anthropological thinking of the time though and some of the most well-respected anthropologists of the late 1800's and early 1900's often thought native people were "savages" for various reasons. It led to a ton of ethnocentric fieldwork.

Totally accurate all the way around. I think Rand would have backtracked on those specific examples. When she says they were "savages" I think she means that they did not respect each other's rights, which was largely true, especially of women.

 

[baldgye]

Genocide is bad because of each individual murder.

Genocide is a targeted extinction of a group of people. Murder isn’t.

So when you ask why is one worse than the other, you seem to be asking what’s wrong with being a racist...


But I’m guessing if you skipped over the first part the rest of her work is similar in ‘skill’ to Anthem?

 

[Danoff]

Genocide is a targeted extinction of a group of people. Murder isn’t.

So when you ask why is one worse than the other, you seem to be asking what’s wrong with being a racist...

What's the difference between targeting a group for extinction and targeting a series of individuals for extinction? Any random group of individuals will share common traits.

But I’m guessing if you skipped over the first part the rest of her work is similar in ‘skill’ to Anthem?

Anthem was probably the worst of the books of hers that I read. But it was good in its own rite.

 

[baldgye]

What's the difference between targeting a group for extinction and targeting a series of individuals for extinction? Any random group of individuals will share common traits.



Anthem was probably the worst of the books of hers that I read. But it was good in its own rite.

I’m utterly lost on your first point... we seem to just be trying to rename genocide?

And have you read We or 1984? She seemed to have just co-opted those stories and slapped in her own ideals in such a slapdash way it’s offensive haha what would you recommend of hers (other than The Fountainhead)?

 

[Danoff]

I’m utterly lost on your first point... we seem to just be trying to rename genocide?

Ok. Let's say that there are 1000, all of one race, left on earth. And someone kills them all. That's genocide right? Eradicated a race from the Earth. Now let's say that that person, instead of killing those 1000 people, killed 1000 people of all kinds of different races. That's not genocide right? That's mass-murder. Which crime is worse and why?

And have you read We or 1984? She seemed to have just co-opted those stories and slapped in her own ideals in such a slapdash way it’s offensive haha what would you recommend of hers (other than The Fountainhead)?

I've not read We. No they were not co-opted. If you think Anthem was 1984 you're misunderstanding the point of one or both of those. Actually I think my favorite book of hers is Philosophy: Who Needs It. But Atlas is the one to read if you're going to read one.

 

[baldgye]

Ok. Let's say that there are 1000, all of one race, left on earth. And someone kills them all. That's genocide right?

Right.

Now let's say that that person, instead of killing those 1000 people, killed 1000 people of all kinds of different races. That's not genocide right? That's mass-murder. Which crime is worse and why?

Genocide. Because of the rational and intent. The same reason manslaughter carries less of a sentence than murder.

I've not read We. No they were not co-opted. If you think Anthem was 1984 you're misunderstanding the point of one or both of those. Actually I think my favorite book of hers is Philosophy: Who Needs It. But Atlas is the one to read if you're going to read one.

We is fantastic, but while Anthem and We/1984 have vastly different points, Anthem is all but a bad-fan copy with her own philosophy elbowed in at the end.
I guess I’ll have to give Atlas a go then

 

[Danoff]

Genocide. Because of the rational and intent. The same reason manslaughter carries less of a sentence than murder.

Why is the intent to kill 1000 people of different races better than the intent to kill 1000 people of the same race. What if I told you that the 1000 people of different races all shared some sort of common attribute.. say they were all men, or all postal workers, or all non-christian.

 

[baldgye]

Why is the intent to kill 1000 people of different races better than the intent to kill 1000 people of the same race. What if I told you that the 1000 people of different races all shared some sort of common attribute.. say they were all men, or all postal workers, or all non-christian.

Because you seem to be asking me what’s wrong with being a racist?

Unfortunately I seem to have got it right the first time

 

[Danoff]

Unfortunately I seem to have got it right the first time

Nope. You're still being sloppy. How about you take a stab at answering the question.

 

[baldgye]

Nope. You're still being sloppy. How about you take a stab at answering the question.

I mean, you don’t understand what genocide is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Also me guessing right the first time off your post seems to be the opposite of sloppy

 

[Danoff]

I mean, you don’t understand what genocide is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Also me guessing right the first time off your post seems to be the opposite of sloppy

None of the examples I gave are in the definition of genocide:

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part."

Explain to me which of my examples are ethnic, national, racial, or religious groups.

 

[baldgye]

None of the examples I gave are in the definition of genocide.

Ok. Let's say that there are 1000, all of one race, left on earth. And someone kills them all.

Yeah, you did

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, you did

Is that a joke? That was the genocide example.

Please explain why you think this "I mean, you don’t understand what genocide is."

 

[baldgye]

Is that a joke? That was the genocide example.

Please explain why you think this "I mean, you don’t understand what genocide is."

The other examples where questions (thus wouldn’t make sense in quoting?) asking why mass murder is worse of a crime than genocide.
I linked the definition of genocide because your questions signify that you fundamentally don’t understand what genocide is.

I don’t know what you want from me lol you seem to either, not understand genocide or not understand racism?


Genocide is one of if not the most apauing crimes man can commit. It is targeted and systematic. It doesn't and can’t happen at random or by accident. It’s purpose is singular, murders purpose isn’t.

 

[SagarisGTB]

She's making very precise statements, which you're drawing incorrect conclusions from. I agree that genocide is no greater crime than murder (specifically murder of a number of individuals). I also agree that "Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent". She's saying "white" to be intentionally confrontational. Her view was more general than that, which is that any person who brings civilization has a right to take over, and that's true (and very hard to argue with).

Look at it more closely.

She's making a very specific point, which is that unless you have property rights in the land, you don't have a right to the land. You can try to find evidence that she supported genocide or you can apologize for stating false information.

Are you saying that all people who don't subscribe to your prescribed sedentary lifestyle have no right to live life on their own terms? And that land can only be "owned" and cannot be shared?

When she says they were "savages" I think she means that they did not respect each other's rights, which was largely true, especially of women.

How is that any different to the rest of the world back then? (or even today really)

It's worth noting that you and she are making a blanket statement on the indigenous peoples of the Americas in the colonial era, which were fairly diverse in terms of lifestyle and values. Though, like the Salon article states, Rand didn't care much for historical accuracy when she peddled her ethnocentric idealistic beliefs.

 

[Danoff]

The other examples where questions (thus wouldn’t make sense in quoting?) asking why mass murder is worse of a crime than genocide.
I linked the definition of genocide because your questions signify that you fundamentally don’t understand what genocide is.

You're implying that one of my examples (whether genocide examples or non-genocide examples) ran afoul of your definition of genocide. None of them do.

I don’t know what you want from me lol you seem to either, not understand genocide or not understand racism?

I understand both.

Genocide is one of if not the most apauing crimes man can commit. It is targeted and systematic. It doesn't and can’t happen at random or by accident. It’s purpose is singular, murders purpose isn’t.

A murder's purpose is singular, to kill an innocent person. How is that so different from the purpose of killing a group of innocent people? Especially when the numbers are the same. If someone kills 1000 innocent white people because they hated them for being white, that person is no more or less horrible than if that person kills 1000 innocent postal workers simply because they got their mail late.

Are you saying that all people who don't subscribe to your prescribed sedentary lifestyle have no right to live life on their own terms?

No. It's saying that people who do not have a concept of property are likely not to own any.

And that land can only be "owned" and cannot be shared? How is that any different to the rest of the world back then? (or even today really)

I don't know who is saying that something owned cannot be shared.

It's worth noting that you and she are making a blanket statement on the indigenous peoples of the Americas in the colonial era, which were fairly diverse in terms of lifestyle and values. Though, like the Salon article states, Rand didn't care much for historical accuracy when she peddled her ethnocentric idealistic beliefs.

I'm not sure what blanket statement I'm making. I'm not sure what is ethnocentric about Rand's beliefs either. The concepts of human rights (and more specifically property rights) apply regardless of skin or ethnicity, and the arguments she's making do not hinge on any of those attributes either.

 

[baldgye]

A murder's purpose is singular, to kill an innocent person. How is that so different from the purpose of killing a group of innocent people?

These two sentences highlight your misunderstanding of both murder and genocide.

This conversation is over until you learn what the two terms mean, because otherwise it won’t go anywhere.

 

[Danoff]

This conversation is over

Yea, I agree. Until you can start making statements you actually care to support when they're scrutinized, it's not valuable time spent.

For the record, it really looks like you're saying that skin color is more important that being employed as a postal worker, and that's racist.

 

[SagarisGTB]

No. It's saying that people who do not have a concept of property are likely not to own any.

You're being obtuse. A nomadic lifestyle is at odds with land ownership, as once all the land is "owned", there is no space for those that choose a nomadic lifestyle. And since you posted:

She's making a very specific point, which is that unless you have property rights in the land, you don't have a right to the land.

If nomads don't have rights to the land (ie living on it), they don't have the rights to live on their own terms, correct?

I don't know who is saying that something owned cannot be shared.

Let me correct myself, I meant 'universally shared', as in shared unconditionally. If something is owned, it is shared only at the discretion of the owner and is subject to their biases.

I'm not sure what blanket statement I'm making. I'm not sure what is ethnocentric about Rand's beliefs either. The concepts of human rights (and more specifically property rights) apply regardless of skin or ethnicity, and the arguments she's making do not hinge on any of those attributes either.

Rand's belief that the concept of property rights is universal is ethnocentric. That the land is there to be controlled by humans is certainly no more valid than the alternative, that the land should not be "owned" by anyone. Both have pros and cons. The former certainly works better with Western civilization than the latter, but it's not the only form of civilization. The notion that civilizations that observe land property rights should supersede all others is supercilious and high-handed.

 

[baldgye]

For the record, it really looks like you're saying that skin color is more important that being employed as a postal worker...

I am saying that.

 

[Danoff]

You're being obtuse. A nomadic lifestyle is at odds with land ownership, as once all the land is "owned", there is no space for those that choose a nomadic lifestyle.

They'd just need to pay for access. Nomadic lifestyle does not imply an inability to trade. If you're implying that choosing to be a nomad gives you access to the property of others, or that this somehow destroys the notion of property ownership, you'd be wrong on either count.

If nomads don't have rights to the land (ie living on it), they don't have the rights to live on their own terms, correct?

I don't know what "on their own terms" means here. People don't generally have a right to live "on their own terms". For example, the ability to commit genocide (which might be someone's terms) is not a right.

Let me correct myself, I meant 'universally shared', as in shared unconditionally. If something is owned, it is shared only at the discretion of the owner and is subject to their biases.

See above.

Rand's belief that the concept of property rights is universal is ethnocentric. That the land is there to be controlled by humans is certainly no more valid than the alternative, that the land should not be "owned" by anyone. Both have pros and cons. The former certainly works better with Western civilization than the latter, but it's not the only form of civilization. The notion that civilizations that observe land property rights should supersede all others is supercilious and high-handed.

Property rights are not ethnocentric. Check our the human rights thread for an explanation of where they come from.

I am saying that.

...and it's racist.

 

[baldgye]

...and it's racist.

TIL being a postal worker is a race

 

[SagarisGTB]

Property rights are not ethnocentric. Check our the human rights thread for an explanation of where they come from.

I disagree, I don't perceive property rights to be universal human rights, instead social rights. The ability to own property is entirely contingent on approval from society (or the state, which acts on behalf of society). If society doesn't recognize that you own something, you don't own it. Furthermore, different societies have different ideas of what constitutes property that can owned by an individual or corporation. Most societies recognize ownership of individual items (clothes, cooking items, etc.). But do you draw the line at land ownership (and what land specifically), river ownership, a lake, airspace or even the air itself? It's up to the society in question.

If the land in question is determined to be public space and not for purchase, I don't see how that's a violation of human rights. Humans are not entitled to land ownership, so if the inhabitants deem the land they live on to be public space, what right do foreign invaders have to apply their unwelcome societal structure where societal structures already exist?

 

[Dotini]

But do you draw the line at land ownership (and what land specifically), river ownership, a lake, airspace or even the air itself? It's up to the society in question.

In western Oregon, a region teeming with water, it is illegal to use the water that falls on your own roof. Cousin Karl says this is the fourth horseman of the apocalypse!

 

[TexRex]

In western Oregon, a region teeming with water, it is illegal to use the water that falls on your own roof.

Source?

 

[Dotini]

https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/wr/index.aspx

 

[TexRex]

https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/wr/index.aspx

And where does it say it's illegal to collect rainwater from your own rooftop?

"Under Oregon law, all water is publicly owned. With some exceptions, cities, farmers, factory owners and other users must obtain a permit or water right from the Water Resources Department to use water from any source— whether it is underground, or from lakes or streams. Landowners with water flowing past, through, or under their property do not automatically have the right to use that water without a permit from the Department."

That speaks only of water flow, and that water flow originates from somewhere. So again, where's the bit regarding rooftop collection?

I have a link as well:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/rainwater-harvesting.aspx#or

Oregon

Rainwater harvesting is allowed in Oregon, but may only be done from roof surfaces. Oregon allows for alternate methods of construction of rainwater harvesting systems (Or. Rev. Stat. §455.060). The Oregon Building Codes Division (BCD) has approved the use of rainwater harvesting systems as an alternate method to the state plumbing code and created methods for both potable and non-potable systems.

Senate Bill 79 (2009) directs the BCD to increase energy efficiency by including rainwater harvesting, in new and repaired buildings.

Additional Resources: Oregon Smart Guide - Rainwater Harvesting

I particularly like the link at the bottom, which directs to a handy-dandy brochure with advice for establishing rooftop rainwater collection on your property. Seems to me the practice is not only legal, but encouraged.

There appear to be rules in place that require the pulling of a permit for other water gathering, though; particularly of water that flows on or under one's property, but it's unlikely that water originated on one's property and such permit requirements are downright reasonable.

Of course there are penalties for not pulling the necessary permit, as one man has learned the hard way.

 

[Dotini]

And where does it say it's illegal to collect rainwater from your own rooftop?

"Under Oregon law, all water is publicly owned. With some exceptions, cities, farmers, factory owners and other users must obtain a permit or water right from the Water Resources Department to use water from any source— whether it is underground, or from lakes or streams. Landowners with water flowing past, through, or under their property do not automatically have the right to use that water without a permit from the Department."

That speaks only of water flow, and that water flow originates from somewhere. So again, where's the bit regarding rooftop collection?

I have a link as well:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/rainwater-harvesting.aspx#or



I particularly like the link at the bottom, which directs to a handy-dandy brochure with advice for establishing rooftop rainwater collection on your property. Seems to me the practice is not only legal, but encouraged.

There appear to be rules in place that require the pulling of a permit for other water gathering, though; particularly of water that flows on or under one's property, but it's unlikely that water originated on one's property and such permit requirements are downright reasonable.

Of course there are penalties for not pulling the necessary permit, as one man has learned the hard way.

Yes, I should have said you are not free to take the rainwater off your own roof. It belongs to the state, and you need to apply and receive a permit from the state to do so. It's communism. And another vote for Karl Marx as one of humanity's greatest, as in most influential, minds.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I nominate John Zerzan as another of humanity's greatest thinkers. Although not terribly influential, he is the godfather of the green anarchist movement, and as an antiauthoritarian, of some interest to libertarians.

 

[daan]

In western Oregon, a region teeming with water, it is illegal to use the water that falls on your own roof.

Source?

The sky.