Biology, Politics, and the Left

[siti]

Cute.

Why thank you Mister - I've come over all ablush...

But really, just having a bit of fun with words - as were you - indigent indeed!

More seriously, and to get back on topic, if the argument is that if "property ownership" is (as claimed by @wellwisher) a human right, as self-evident and unalienable as the right to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" then why is nobody arguing for it to be applied universally? Why are proponents of this notion not returning the land they currently occupy to its original owners from whom, if @wellwisher is correct, that right is "unalienable".

Of course it is not an unalienable right (which is presumably why it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution from the get go, in fact when that - and the Bill of Rights including the 5th amendment that does mention property rights - were drafted, "property" would have included slaves. I'm sorry to "pee on your bonfire", but if that is the notion of property ownership that is being defended, then your argument (at best) belongs to an earlier century. In any case, the property rights defended in the 5th and 14th amendments are not "unalienable", rather, they are subject to "due process".

So again, I ask @wellwisher in particular, who says that "property ownership" is a human right?

 

[metis]

The one thing that one sees over the long haul of history is that peoples move around over thousands of years. Before the Vikings and Columbus, the Inuit and American Indians were in control, but only temporarily in each region. People moved or were taken over. If one sees satellite pictures of Earth, note that no boundaries show up.

A couple of years ago, I did 23 and Me, and was shocked how much my ancestors moved around. Some of my father's early ancestors come from India. Some of my mother's came from the Arctic Circle by the Ural Mountains. I had no clue of either.
My Amerindian ancestors were part of the Iroquois Nation and Me'tis from Quebec and also some Pawnee out of the Illinois area.

After the Indians were removed from power and most of their land, much of the U.S. today was controlled by the Spanish, and we took that from them. Etc.

We don't own land-- we basically rent it for a while.

 

[Revoltingest]

We don't own land--

People who say that change their
minds when someone tries to steal it.

 

[siti]

A couple of years ago, I did 23 and Me, and was shocked how much my ancestors moved around...

We don't own land-- we basically rent it for a while.

People who say that change their
minds when someone tries to steal it.

I have been tracing my genealogy from documentary evidence (census data, church records etc.) and I found the same thing...I had this assumption that before the era of modern transportation (railways etc.) people pretty much stayed where they were...but I discovered ancestors who came and went to and from all corners of Britain and beyond. Almost none of them "owned" land as far as I can tell - some owned houses, but literally rented the land they stood on from some much wealthier person who held "freehold" title and charged rent (usually a small annual sum) for it. By far the most of my ancestors in the last couple of centuries owned neither land nor house.

In any case, in England (and Wales) at least, since 1066, all the land is legally owned by the Crown (after William the Conqueror "stole" the whole bloody lot)...in England, technically, legally, even if you "own" "freehold" title to "your" land, what that means is that it is "granted" to you "in perpetuity" free of rent or any other impediment to your enjoyment of the land, by the Crown. To all intents and purposes you "own" it, but in a strict legal sense you really don't.

Where I now live, in Fiji, most of the land (about 85%) is "owned" legally by the indigenous clans collectively - there is a govt. authority that receives and distributes the rental income to the landowners. That land, and the land owned by the government (which is termed "Crown land" on account of that having been "stolen" or purchased from the indigenous landowners by the Brits during the colonial period) cannot be sold - only leased. There is a relatively small percentage of "freehold" land which was purchased (sometimes by trickery and deception for well below its true value) from the indigenous landowners, mostly during 19th century. the genuine ownership of some of this land is contested by the indigenous communities who claim ancestral ownership.

Even in the US, where in the process of colonization anyone was allowed to "steal" anyone's land and then declare their "right" to keep it, I think less than about 30% of the adult population actually "own" land legally. The "median person" in the US owns zero land.

And all this "stealing" and "appropriation" of territory is not unique to humans...chimpanzees (our closest evolutionary cousins) do "land grabs" too - they purposely infringe on the territory of rival chimp groups and even kill one another in order to extend their territorial boundaries.

So no, "owning" and defending "property" is not a self-evident and unalienable human right, I think, as much as a genetically-mediated instinctive ethological imperative that despite our delusions of moral and ethical maturity, we have not yet grown out of.

 

[Revoltingest]

So no, "owning" and defending "property" is not a self-evident and unalienable human right, I think, as much as a genetically-mediated instinctive ethological imperative that despite our delusions of moral and ethical maturity, we have not yet grown out of.

Would you argue that Ukraine has no right
to defend itself from Russia taking its land?

 

[siti]

Would you argue that Ukraine has no right
to defend itself from Russia taking its land?

No more than I would argue that a group of chimpanzees had no right to defend itself against the territorial aggression of a rival group.

Would you argue that the indigenous peoples of America or Australia have no right to demand their ancestral lands back? Or that the British people should not demand their right to access land that once belonged to their ancestors and was (mis)appropriated by an invading Monarchy?

I predict, if Russia does happen to "win" and gains territory from Ukraine, it is only a matter of time before the "rights" of the Ukrainian defenders are forgotten and the revised boundaries accepted as "legal" by the rest of the world. That's how property and territorial "rights" work - they are conventions based on power and economics, protected only, and certainly not universally, by the conventions of "due process". And fundamentally, they are part of our biological heritage...we fight for and defend "our" territory because that's our natural instinctive impulse. They are not fundamental "human rights".

 

[Revoltingest]

No more than I would argue that a group of chimpanzees had no right to defend itself against the territorial aggression of a rival group.

That doesn't answer the question.
You only compare property rights
of chimps to humans.

You must answer my questions
before posing your own, especially
since the answers are more complex.

 

[siti]

That doesn't answer the question.
You only compare property rights
of chimps to humans.

You must answer my questions
before posing your own, especially
since the answers are more complex.

The comparison is valid since the "rights" are comparable...

I'm not sure why you say I "must" answer your question...says who? And even if I do, you are under no compulsion to answer mine - but you can if you wish.

So...

Would you argue that Ukraine has no right
to defend itself from Russia taking its land?

No I would not say Ukraine has no right to defend itself...it has a legal right to defend its boundaries as recognized by law and convention...but this is a "right" based on human convention and protected by "due process" in the International Courts and the UN (not that either of those is very effective).

But if you want to uphold an "unalienable human right" then you have to decide who really has ancestral 'ownership' rights - would it be the descendants of the original neolithic settlers, the Yamnaya invaders who pushed them out, the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Khazars, Slavs, the (probably Norse) Rus', Varangians (Vikings), Mongols, Poles, Lithuanians, Cossacks, Austrians, Ottomans, the Russians Tsar's or the Soviets? Because all of these have at one time or another held territorial "rights" to some or all of what is now referred to as Ukraine, which has existed as a independent country only for about a year and a half between 1917 to 1919 and then from 1991 until now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure why you say I "must" answer your question...

"Must" applies only if you want me to answer your questions.

No I would not say Ukraine has no right to defend itself...i

Rights are matters of consensus. Outside of Russia
& its apologists, there's wide acceptance of the
right to self defense. It is a right simply for that
reason.

But if you want to uphold an "unalienable human right" then you have to decide who really has ancestral 'ownership' rights - would it be the descendants of the original neolithic settlers, the Yamnaya invaders who pushed them out, the Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Khazars, Slavs, the (probably Norse) Rus', Varangians (Vikings), Mongols, Poles, Lithuanians, Cossacks, Austrians, Ottomans, the Russians Tsar's or the Soviets? Because all of these have at one time or another held territorial "rights" to some or all of what is now referred to as Ukraine, which has existed as a independent country only for about a year and a half between 1917 to 1919 and then from 1991 until now.

You say "unalienable human right".
I just say "right"....without the moral absolutism
you appear to pursue.
I recognize factors that cause rights to wane over
time. This causes remedies to wrongs to change.
Think in terms of a moving point on a spectrum
of remedies, reparations, & accommodations.

 

[siti]

You say "unalienable human right".
I just say "right"....without the moral absolutism
you appear to pursue.

I am not pursuing moral absolutism, I am denying its existence...my remarks were in response to @wellwisher who equated the right to own property to the "unalienable" rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the US Constitution...there is no absolute "right" to own property...like I said earlier any such rights are fundamentally matters of power and economic forces and protected only by convention not by moral entitlement. That fact is recognized in the US Constitution in the two amendments that do mention property rights where the right to ownership is not maintained, only the right not to have ownership taken away without "due process".

I recognize factors that cause rights to wane over
time. This causes remedies to wrongs to change.
Think in terms of a moving point on a spectrum
of remedies, reparations, & accommodations.

Of course - it all evolves along with our social "culture"...which in turn emerges from our biological and ecological evolutionary heritage. Its not so much a moving point, as a vague target impossibly camouflaged against an intricately interwoven and tangled web of competing evolutionary imperatives...a conundrum that we can never solve, only do our best to douse a few of the more inflammatory outbreaks before (or sometimes after) they become genocidal conflagrations. But as long as people maintain absolute "rights" to property or territory and deny the evolutionary reality of why we want to stake territorial claims in the first place, we'll continue to witness Ukraines and Gazas and wring our hands in hopeless despair as to how to resolve them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not pursuing moral absolutism, I am denying its existence...my remarks were in response to @wellwisher who equated the right to own property to the "unalienable" rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the US Constitution...there is no absolute "right" to own property...like I said earlier any such rights are fundamentally matters of power and economic forces and protected only by convention not by moral entitlement. That fact is recognized in the US Constitution in the two amendments that do mention property rights where the right to ownership is not maintained, only the right not to have ownership taken away without "due process".

It appears that both of you are absolutists,
just at opposite ends of the rights spectrum.
I swim around in the middle of it.

Of course - it all evolves along with our social "culture"...which in turn emerges from our biological and ecological evolutionary heritage. Its not so much a moving point, as a vague target impossibly camouflaged against an intricately interwoven and tangled web of competing evolutionary imperatives...a conundrum that we can never solve, only do our best to douse a few of the more inflammatory outbreaks before (or sometimes after) they become genocidal conflagrations. But as long as people maintain absolute "rights" to property or territory and deny the evolutionary reality of why we want to stake territorial claims in the first place, we'll continue to witness Ukraines and Gazas and wring our hands in hopeless despair as to how to resolve them.

If you were a lion, sitting around a recently
killed zebra, you'd be the one asking....
"How can we eat?"
"Why do we eat?"

The ultimate civilized question is....
"Where shall we have lunch?"
So tuck into that feast, & enjoy.

Recognize those quotes?

 

[Balthazzar]

I jiust happened upon what I find to be a pretty interesting article titled: and/or education

On Biology and Politics: Why the Left must take human evolution seriously​

Here are a couple of (somewhat disjointed) quotes ...

• 
  
• 
  

It is a long article, but hopefully some will find it worth reading.

Interesting points and no less true in application of. I can champion both equality and our hierarchies, based on ability and intellect and/or education. I would naturally presume that education would increase ability in our higher offices. Human nature is what it is. As our environments change, so do we and the way we present ourselves and make our choices. We're in flux and as stated, malleable in accordance to need...I would suggest. I'll go a step backward, actually to something much more primitive, self-perseverance or preservation, which I believe is the mechanism that initiates the flux and changes in how we act and react to our environments. With that stated, it's a matter of acknowledging the validity of the sides in question. The caution would naturally be in our capacity to discern action and benefit and vice versa; potential risk. Generally speaking, a great deal of us are less complex than those who weigh out the pros and cons utilizing foresight. Typically, due to what's not known, so yeah ... appropriated education, ability, and positions held in our hierarchies are important for an effective pack or team. It's natural. I mean, the rookie isn't going to be as effective as a 30 year veteran.

 

[Stevicus]

The one thing that one sees over the long haul of history is that peoples move around over thousands of years. Before the Vikings and Columbus, the Inuit and American Indians were in control, but only temporarily in each region. People moved or were taken over. If one sees satellite pictures of Earth, note that no boundaries show up.

A couple of years ago, I did 23 and Me, and was shocked how much my ancestors moved around. Some of my father's early ancestors come from India. Some of my mother's came from the Arctic Circle by the Ural Mountains. I had no clue of either.
My Amerindian ancestors were part of the Iroquois Nation and Me'tis from Quebec and also some Pawnee out of the Illinois area.

After the Indians were removed from power and most of their land, much of the U.S. today was controlled by the Spanish, and we took that from them. Etc.

We don't own land-- we basically rent it for a while.

It's interesting to look at, from a historical angle, how the concept of land ownership and the right to own land has been a major factor in U.S. political development and our overall culture. It was all about moving westward and expanding for a good chunk of our history.

But now, most of society is somewhat urbanized, with larger populations. I think the question tends to move away from "who owns the land" or "who used to own the land," but more a matter of environmentally responsible and prudent land-use policies for the good of the entire society. Everyone needs land; ultimately, everyone needs a place to stand and a place to sleep (at the bare minimum). And if they can't afford a domicile, then they might set up a tent somewhere, but then get rousted out by whoever owns it (and sometimes it's the government). Society needs to find a solution to such issues, and sometimes the overzealous adherence to "property rights" can stand in the way of what's good for the greater society.

 

[siti]

It appears that both of you are absolutists,
just at opposite ends of the rights spectrum.

How do you get that? I though I had clearly indicated that what rights we do have (and I thought I was also clear that we do have rights) are (a) the result of human convention not moral absolutes and (b) evolve with culture - i.e. they change over time - how do you characterize that as "absolutism"? I suppose in terms of rights I am an absolutist in the sense that I reckon there are absolutely no absolute rights - all "human rights" all relative and contingent.

If you were a lion, sitting around a recently
killed zebra, you'd be the one asking....
"How can we eat?"
"Why do we eat?"

The ultimate civilized question is....
"Where shall we have lunch?"

"Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't have a green salad?"

On the other hand I suppose "we don't want to make a meal of the issues"...

Well, OK maybe we do...

The point of the OP was to discuss the suggestion that the political "left" needs to take a more Darwinian approach...I'm agreeing with that. The "left" is all about achieving a more "equitable" (if not equal) distribution of wealth, property, land etc. But the approach to developing "socialist" theories, concepts, policies etc. seems to be based more on pre-Darwinian thought like that of Rousseau, who thought that the seemingly inherent unfairness that characterized the very unequal distribution of wealth and property that he saw was a purely human invention. Marx essentially followed Rousseau in that, imagining that the unequal distribution is a result of human greed. I'm saying that's the wrong foundation to build on because it fails to acknowledge that just as we have evolved naturally to eat meat, we have also evolved naturally to establish and defend a bit of territory - the bigger the better. We can no more change that than a lion can deny being a carnivore.

If we really want to build a meaningful and practicable "socialism" (and yes I know you don't but that was the topic of this thread) it would have to take account of the "Darwinian" reality that we have evolved as a territorial "property-owning" species and any attempt to forcibly redistribute territory is going to be painful and ultimately doomed to failure...if you want a more equitable distribution, you've got to find another way that doesn't attempt to circumvent the reality of our evolutionary heritage.

I have no clear idea exactly what that might be - but maybe it could be in focusing on equitable "access" and efficient land "use" rather than attempting to challenge "ownership"? In terms of agriculture, it seems there is evidence that smallholdings are (or at least could be) actually more productive (acre for acre) than large farms (contrary to the agricultural industrialization drive we have seen over the last few centuries)...but you don't need to own land to farm it - I am a tenant farmer myself - I don't see any practical disadvantage (as a farmer) with that as long as my "right" to remain on it and farm it is legally protected as part of the leasehold agreement...and I am allowed to "defend" it (against damage, encroachment etc.) as (if it were) "my territory".

Of course it all becomes a bit more problematic if its about anything other than doing agriculture on agricultural land...but for many countries even today agrarian reform would be the most effective and useful way to implement a "socialist" type of system I reckon...and that would be to find a way to enshrine "rights" to "access" and "use" and if necessary "defend" a "territory" without denying the rightful owner his property rights. I don't just mean the "rights" of tenants and landlords - but some kind of "right to tenancy" arrangement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think "we're all the same," but we are of the same species. In recent centuries, concepts of human rights developed with the idea that society can produce optimal results if people have, at the very least, equal rights before the law.

Amd both ideas still rather new when compared to older ideas that that were different people/races/species/subhuman and not all created equal and equally endowed by rights. The practice itself even newer and still developing.
Societies, norms, values, these things do change. They just don't change quickly.
Amd even longer we've evolved to focus on our own situation. We're not good at focusing on others, especially when they are very far removed from our ingrouos. This may be another issue, because it's hard to treat people equally when they exist to us as nothing more than the awareness and knowledge of those people existing.

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you get that? I though I had clearly indicated that what rights we do have (and I thought I was also clear that we do have rights) are (a) the result of human convention not moral absolutes and (b) evolve with culture - i.e. they change over time - how do you characterize that as "absolutism"? I suppose in terms of rights I am an absolutist in the sense that I reckon there are absolutely no absolute rights - all "human rights" all relative and contingent.

"Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't have a green salad?"

On the other hand I suppose "we don't want to make a meal of the issues"...

Well, OK maybe we do...

The point of the OP was to discuss the suggestion that the political "left" needs to take a more Darwinian approach...I'm agreeing with that. The "left" is all about achieving a more "equitable" (if not equal) distribution of wealth, property, land etc. But the approach to developing "socialist" theories, concepts, policies etc. seems to be based more on pre-Darwinian thought like that of Rousseau, who thought that the seemingly inherent unfairness that characterized the very unequal distribution of wealth and property that he saw was a purely human invention. Marx essentially followed Rousseau in that, imagining that the unequal distribution is a result of human greed. I'm saying that's the wrong foundation to build on because it fails to acknowledge that just as we have evolved naturally to eat meat, we have also evolved naturally to establish and defend a bit of territory - the bigger the better. We can no more change that than a lion can deny being a carnivore.

If we really want to build a meaningful and practicable "socialism" (and yes I know you don't but that was the topic of this thread) it would have to take account of the "Darwinian" reality that we have evolved as a territorial "property-owning" species and any attempt to forcibly redistribute territory is going to be painful and ultimately doomed to failure...if you want a more equitable distribution, you've got to find another way that doesn't attempt to circumvent the reality of our evolutionary heritage.

I have no clear idea exactly what that might be - but maybe it could be in focusing on equitable "access" and efficient land "use" rather than attempting to challenge "ownership"? In terms of agriculture, it seems there is evidence that smallholdings are (or at least could be) actually more productive (acre for acre) than large farms (contrary to the agricultural industrialization drive we have seen over the last few centuries)...but you don't need to own land to farm it - I am a tenant farmer myself - I don't see any practical disadvantage (as a farmer) with that as long as my "right" to remain on it and farm it is legally protected as part of the leasehold agreement...and I am allowed to "defend" it (against damage, encroachment etc.) as (if it were) "my territory".

Of course it all becomes a bit more problematic if its about anything other than doing agriculture on agricultural land...but for many countries even today agrarian reform would be the most effective and useful way to implement a "socialist" type of system I reckon...and that would be to find a way to enshrine "rights" to "access" and "use" and if necessary "defend" a "territory" without denying the rightful owner his property rights. I don't just mean the "rights" of tenants and landlords - but some kind of "right to tenancy" arrangement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Would you argue that the indigenous peoples of America or Australia have no right to demand their ancestral lands back? Or that the British people should not demand their right to access land that once belonged to their ancestors and was (mis)appropriated by an invading Monarchy?

By this reason, the English don't have a claim to England. Their Anglo-Saxon amcestors appropriated land the Romans left behind, land the Romans violently took from the Britanic Celts. The Bretons even would have a stronger claim to it than the English.

 

[Revoltingest]

By this reason, the English don't have a claim to England. Their Anglo-Saxon amcestors appropriated land the Romans left behind, land the Romans violently took from the Britanic Celts. The Bretons even would have a stronger claim to it than the English.

His approach to land ownership is pretty dysfunctional.
Mine is that ownership is minimizing strife while maximizing
general well being. There will be disagreement about how
to optimize this, but it's still more practical than simplistic
absolutist approaches.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

His approach to land ownership is pretty dysfunctional.

It's actually not amd even some Libertarian (yes, your kind with the big L) authors have discussed how land was widely and mostly stolen and unjustly acquired. The issue lies in solving the issue so all land is justly acquired.

 

[siti]

By this reason, the English don't have a claim to England. Their Anglo-Saxon amcestors appropriated land the Romans left behind, land the Romans violently took from the Britanic Celts. The Bretons even would have a stronger claim to it than the English.

Indeed...that's probably why we went around the globe stealing other people's countries...we couldn't get our hands on our own...

...and for the record, England is currently "owned" (every bit of it in the strictest legal sense) by a descendant of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg branch of the Oldenburg dynasty of Saxon rulers of Northern Germany and Scandinavia (and other places)...as are the few remnants of the bits of the world my ancestors stole on behalf of the Crown that we haven't either lost or given back - or given to somebody else it didn't belong to!

His approach to land ownership is pretty dysfunctional.
Mine is that ownership is minimizing strife while maximizing
general well being. There will be disagreement about how
to optimize this, but it's still more practical than simplistic
absolutist approaches.

Geez - you guys are not very good at reading rhetoric are you?

The point I was making is that if - IF - as in introducing a conditional clause - someone, like, for example, some other posters in this discussion - "other posters" meaning "not me" - are maintaining that there exists some kind of natural, human right to land ownership and/or some kind of natural, human right not to have that land "stolen"...you have an impossible task to determine who really stole which land from whom and when.

I don't know how the descendants of (say) a Scottish immigrant can possibly maintain that they have a natural right to own property in America and not have it stolen...they do not have a natural human right, they have a conventional legal right that is protected (and challengeable) by "due process"...

...that is neither "simplistic" nor "absolutist" - its just a plain fact - and that has been my point all along.