Но ответы на вопросы после речи вкуснее намного. Из книжки на гуглбукс Ayn Rand answers: the best of her Q & A By Ayn Rand, Robert Mayhew:
Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.
Кстати, в этом отношении Рэнд в определённой степени следует рабовладельческой идеологической традиции, выводившей право на аннексии на Юге из неспособности тамошних соседских народов к Self-governance. См. тусовку, составившую Остендский манифест, и вокруг них.
Да, похоже. Вот 1976 год, и звучит, кстати, вполне ЖЖ-созвучно:
Should this country return some of the lands that were seized from the Indians under the guise of a contractual relationship?
As a principle, one should respect the sanctity of a contract among individuals. I'm not certain about contracts among nations; that depends on the nature and behavior of the other nation. But I oppose applying contract law lo American Indians. I discuss this issue in "Collectivized 'Rights'" When a group of people or a nation does not respect individual rights, it cannot claim any rights whatever. The Indians were savages, with ghastly tribal rules and rituals, including the famous "Indian Torture." Such tribes have no rights. Anyone had the right to come here and take whatever they could, because they would be dealing with savages as the Indians dealt with each other-that is, by force. We owe nothing to the Indians, except the memory of monstrous evils done by them. But suppose there is evidence of white people treating Indians badly. That's too bad; I'd regret it. But in the history of this country, it's an exception. It wouldn't give the Indians any kind of rights. Look at their history, look at their culture, look at their treatment of their own people. Those who do not recognize individual rights cannot expect to have any rights, or to have them respected.
The Indians were savages, with ghastly tribal rules and rituals, including the famous "Indian Torture." Such tribes have no rights. Anyone had the right to come here and take whatever they could, because they would be dealing with savages as the Indians dealt with each other-that is, by force.
The Norteamericanos were savages, with ghastly tribal rules and rituals, including the famous "waterboarding" Such tribes have no rights. Anyone had the right to come here and take whatever they could, because they would be dealing with savages as the Norteamericanos dealt with each other-that is, by force.
ох, ох, ох,богатая логика since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land,
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Из книжки на гуглбукс Ayn Rand answers: the best of her Q & A By Ayn Rand, Robert Mayhew:
Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Should this country return some of the lands that were seized from the Indians under the guise of a contractual relationship?
As a principle, one should respect the sanctity of a contract among individuals. I'm not certain about contracts among nations; that depends on the nature and behavior of the other nation. But I oppose applying contract law lo American Indians. I discuss this issue in "Collectivized 'Rights'" When a group of people or a nation does not respect individual rights, it cannot claim any rights whatever. The Indians were savages, with ghastly tribal rules and rituals, including the famous "Indian Torture." Such tribes have no rights. Anyone had the right to come here and take whatever they could, because they would be dealing with savages as the Indians dealt with each other-that is, by force. We owe nothing to the Indians, except the memory of monstrous evils done by them. But suppose there is evidence of white people treating Indians badly. That's too bad; I'd regret it. But in the history of this country, it's an exception. It wouldn't give the Indians any kind of rights. Look at their history, look at their culture, look at their treatment of their own people. Those who do not recognize individual rights cannot expect to have any rights, or to have them respected.
no subject
The Norteamericanos were savages, with ghastly tribal rules and rituals, including the famous "waterboarding" Such tribes have no rights. Anyone had the right to come here and take whatever they could, because they would be dealing with savages as the Norteamericanos dealt with each other-that is, by force.
no subject
no subject
(C уважением)
За это Вас пригвоздят к столбу многие: от неосоветских охранителей до либертарианцев.
no subject
since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land,