: If the Native Americans did not 'recognize' they were being robbed of their land, why then did they fight the 'White Devil'? Or are you suggesting that the 'White Devil' simply KILLED THEM OFF for the hell of it?
: They probably fought the Europeans because the first colonists were a bunch of pig-headed men looking for wealth at whatever cost. Both the settlers and the Natives had very poor senses of individual rights.
: Well, finally, an admission of wrong-doing on the part of those who forcibly EXPROPRIATED the Native Americans.
: Your grudging observation that the Native Americans had 'very poor senses of individual rights,' however is arbitrary and adventitious. After all, it was THEIR land; wouldn't it be safe to say---using your sense of the sanctity of private property---that they had the RIGHT to observe whatever sort of 'individual rights' they wished to ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY?
: To tack on---in bad faith---that 'North America was not one big love commune, far from it' tells us nothing about property rights---the property rights of the Native Americans that were TRAMPLED UPON by the European usurpers that soon became the strongest---and most imperious---bourgeoisie in the world. All your observation does is perpetuate the haughty idea that Native Americans were 'savages' and, therefore, 'deserved' to have their property taken from them. Shame on you considering your idealistic, inflexible sermons concerning 'morals' and 'rights.'
I agree. You are right. However, the question arises as to how we should deal with such injustices that happened in the past. Find direct descendants?
: Moving on...
: What if I had the only garden in the world---and you were hungry.
: Well, I would first try to find an alternative means. If no other existed, I would open negotiations with you. Provide you with a service you need.
: Exactly. And the only service I'll consider is that you may tend to my garden---continually---for nothing more than 10% of its yield.
: That would be your prerogative. I would obviously not be happy and probably spend the remaining free time in my life to find an alternative.
: Exactly. And if indeed I owned the ONLY garden in the world, your 'alternative' might be THIS.
: Other than the U.S, what capitalist nations existed between 1600 and 1800? That time period was when the discussion on Capitalist theory began.
: Ever heard of ENGLAND?
: Enclosure is often thought of as simply the fencing in of common land, or of the 'open fields' that characterized certain parts of the English countryside. But enclosure meant the extinction, with or without a physical fencing of land, of common and customary use rights on which many people depended for their livelihood.
: The first major wave of enclosure occurred in the sixteenth century, when larger landowners sought to drive commoners off lands that could be profitably put to use as pasture for increasingly lucrative sheep farming. Contemporary commentators held enclosure, more than any other single factor, responsible for the growing plague of vagabonds, those dispossessed 'masterless men' who wandered the countryside... [I]t remains the most vivid expression of the relentless process that was changing not only the English countryside but the world: the birth of capitalism.(1)
I would argue that the enclosure movement was a result of trying to institute a new economic system while maintaing past hierarchal values. It was the elitism of the old monarchism that caused England to try to mesh capitalism with the whole idea of static classism.
: I'm shocked to think that any of this comes as news to you.
: ...Russia is not a capitalist nation.
: Of course it is. And it well resembles the anarchy of early capitalism.
: Children are dependents. They require a host to support them. It is the responsibility of the parents to provide for them. It may seem unfair that one child has super attentive parents who work hard for their well being, while another has neglectful parents,
: however, that is just the way the cards fall sometimes.
: 'That is just the way the cards fall sometimes'?
: Did I hear you correctly?
: 'That is just the way the cards fall sometimes'? The Spencerian doctrine of effective demand for CHILDREN?
: One of these days, mister, the cards are going to fall THE OTHER WAY, and when the proletariat come looking for you, you better have your passport in order.
After my original response, I started to think about your question. I realized that I had made a gross error in my analysis of it.
I agree with you that the children do not deserve any of it. They have no entitlement to any sort of education, no matter how poor it is. They are not entitled to day care, or anything else. Since they have not done anything to earn it, they should not get it.
It is the parents obligation to provide their children with education, food, and housing. Not the obligation of everyone else.
: if you really want to be avant garde and cutting edge you can always say something like "give people what they don't deserve! That is fair."
: Ever heard of the Labor Theory of Value?
Many, many, many times before :)