Stolen Lands

 

Leftists lately have been fond of claiming that all of America is “stolen land” taken from the Indians and sometimes demanding that one parcel or another be returned to them. Conservatives point out that it is never land owned or used by the leftists that they want returned, and the charge of hypocrisy is accurate. However it misses the most important point. It is possible for hypocrites  to be right in principle about something on which they are hypocritical. It is necessary to refute the claims, not just show the leftists are being phonies.

The notion of theft presupposes the notion of property. If there were no property, that is things that rightly belong to people, there could be no theft. People acquire rights of property in land in wildernesses by developing it - usually for agriculture or mining or manufacture - or by building and using durable, long used structures on it. Moving through land on nomadic hunting trips, having a small village within miles of it, or marching across it in the name of the King of Spain does not acquire property rights to it. Some of the land in what is now the United States was fully settled by Indians, and any newcomers should have respected their property, and, if the wanted it, bought it from them (as when the Dutch bought Manhattan). Those who did otherwise were wrong. However most of the continent was wilderness belonging to no one. It was not stolen and could not have been stolen.

It is interesting that the proponents of the idea of America as stolen lands seem mainly to be socialists and communists who usually disparage or deny the idea of property rights. But if one hates America enough, any excuse will do. Of course some are rich, posturing phonies who deserve to be called on their phoniness. It would be amusing to see what the defense would be if some Vermont Indians showed up in court demanding ownership of, say, a famous ice cream factory in the state. That case would be worth watching on TV, even on pay per view.

Science, Manners, and Transsexual Politics

 

Start with the obvious. Among humans, other primates, dogs, cats, ungulates, birds, and so on, there are exactly two sexes, male and female, fixed and determined genetically. People denying or refusing to acknowledge this fact out of cowardice, trendiness, or political expediency make it hard to take their claims on other controversial questions – such as climate change or the origins of Covid – seriously. They also forfeit any intellectual or moral standing to criticize even the goofiest creationists, young earthers, and anti-vaxers other than hypocritically for being anti-science and in good taste should avoid doing so.

There are people who wish to present themselves and be seen as a person of the opposite sex. Some are pretending while others believe that in some important internal way they really are a person of the opposite sex. Some alter their appearance with surgery or drugs to make them more nearly resemble a person of the opposite sex while others only dress and behave in ways common among those of the other sex.

The question of how others should treat and react to transsexuals has become interesting to many people lately. The first and most important principle is that in a free country people are free to present themselves as anything they like. It is their business and their right (just as it is the right and business of others to believe or disbelieve what they claim). Their rights should be respected. As to how others should behave beyond that, I think that as a matter of politeness it usually is better in interpersonal interactions to humor or ignore people’s claims and delusions about themselves, including this one, rather than dispute and contradict them. The main exception would be situations where someone demands expressions of agreement. One should never put up with being ordered what to think about anything by anybody, especially an official.

The question has also become a fairly big political one. That is a mistake. With one exception there is no proper place for governments and politicians to do much of anything on the issue. It does someone no harm if his neighbor pretends to be a woman, a man, a horse, a bird, Napoleon, or Jesus. It also does the neighbor no harm if others think he is disturbed, unstable, immoral, or completely nuts for so pretending. The exception has to do with minors. It is appropriate for governments to set an age limit below which minors may not elect to have transsexual surgeries or drug treatments, just as they set age limits below which minors may not buy a pack of cigarettes or drive a car on the highway. It is not clear where the limit should be, and whatever age is picked would be in some ways arbitrary, as with other age limits.

Now we have left wing politicians passing or proposing laws sending people to the slammer for “misgendering” someone, removing children from parents who oppose their switching sexes, and banning attempts to talk transsexuals into changing their minds and right wing politicians passing or proposing laws banning transsexual surgeries and drug treatments for adults, making drag queen shows illegal, and preventing doctors and teachers from discussing transsexual topics with adolescents. Both want to regulate who gets to use which toilet or shower when and who gets to participate in what athletic events when. It is bad enough that that is foolish and none of their business. But it also creates a situation in which people on each side feel they have to protect themselves by defeating those on the other side and forcing everyone do what they demand - abandoning the reasonable solution of leaving people free to make their own decisions and accepting that those decisions will vary. It is dangerous, and it need to stop.

I