From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Indian-Giving-and-Taking
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:33:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.233509.8637@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>,
gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>Of course, over the history of human kind much land which may have
>>been originally acquired in just Lockian fashion has likely been
>>transferred unjustly.  Libertarians support the return of all stolen
>>property to the just owners WHEN THE CLAIM CAN BE ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED.
>
>While this may not have been an original intention, this is a good way
>to sidestep most Native land claims in the event of a Libertarian US
>federal government.  In Canada, large areas have been reclaimed by
>natives based on broken treaties with the Crown (first British, then
>Canadian) and historical records.

Huh?  How can the requirement for proof of an assertion be
construed as an attempt to side step such claims?  Didn't the
Canadian government require such proof?  Aren't the traties
themselves part of that proof?

I think that to revert land most libertarians would want two
things to be adequately substantiated.

1) the party making the claim had a valid claim based on direct
Lockian homesteading or by unprotested legal transfers subsequent to
the original acquisition (including inheritance)

2) that the land was subsequently stolen or extracted by fraud from
the claimants

>On the other hand, the logbook of a U.S. Army Cavalry captain making
>mention of a Native settlement might well be legitimate ... but if a
>massacre had taken place at his hands then there'd be nobody around
>to claim anyways.  So, here's the question of the day ... would any
>territorial clauses of the Seven Nations Confederacy (e.g., Iroquois,
>Hurons, etc.) records/constitution/ whatever be considered legitimate
>by a US Libertarian government?  After all, they are recognized as
>indigenous nations ... and if the answer is Yes, would the transfer
>then be immediate?

If the lineage of the claimants were entirely wiped out by a
massacre there would be no one to make a claim on their behalf since
there would be no one to inherit their property rights.  This was
rarely the case, however.  Most of the time tribes were decimated
but not annihilated so there remains a potential for claimants.
What's probably more problematical is the ability of the descendants
of survivors to establish that they are indeed the legitimate heirs
of the legitimate owners because in many case birth records were
non-existent, spotty or destroyed.

As to how restitution should be made I think it's probably better to
leave that to a case by case analysis. In a large number of case the
thief is likely to have been a government which would tend to make
the government responsible to compensation.  In some cases a
monetary settlement may be in the best interests of the claimants
rather than the actual return of the land.  If a court rules in
favor of a claimant I think it should encourage all parties to
resolve the settle by negotiation and come back to the court with a
proposal or at least several proposal for the court to adjudicate
among.

>I hope this is an easier question than the last one on GATT, as it
>lies within U.S. borders.  (-;

But it still involves the resolution of disputes among "sovereign
nations".  BTW, Indian activist Russell means is a member of the
Libertarian Party and was the runner-up for the Presidential
nomination in 1988.

>gld

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17287 alt.politics.elections:534 misc.taxes:2146 alt.society.civil-liberty:3289