Hacker News Reader

Comment by johngalt | Hacker News Reader

Here's a justification for private property. How will there ever be an orchard otherwise? Orchards don't just burst spontaneously into existence.

Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there. Over the years through hard work, dedication and sacrifice the land was amended and the trees grew creating the orchard. The only thing the farmer asked for in return was to sell his surplus. Lowering the cost of apples to all.

Then some jackass jumps off a train and expects it all handed to him for free or he'll attack the farmer.

I can understand the idea of not wanting to participate in a capitalist system, but I can't understand what makes someone 'evil' just because they've created something that you haven't.

View on HN

A nice turnaround, but in the story, the land wasn't a vacant waste, it was acquired by force. The story isn't "Oh, you moved into emptiness and created something, so I'll fight you", it was "you fought the people here before, so I'll continue with your method of ownership".

Similarly, the wobbly wasn't demanding an apple, but enjoying the shade. Was the farmer selling shade? Lowering the cost of shade to all?

The idea of a one-sided "fuck off, this is MY land" seems to be a new-world Anglo thing - back in Europe a lot of countries have a form of right to roam that sits in conflict with property rights. While there is certainly a 'my land!' aspect, there's also the competing philosophical idea that people are free to travel over it or use it recreationally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Right_to_roam_i...

It wasn't acquired by force by the farmer, it was acquired by force by the great grandfather.

Either way, you disprove your own point. The farmer has a more legitimate claim because he worked for it, he didn't attack someone for it like the guy who showed up wants to.

My point was that the parent post was misrepresenting the original story. I'm not sure how that's disproved by what you're saying.

Also in Europe we had common land, and while you can argue about the tragedy of the commons, enclosure destroyed many peoples only source of livelihood.

> Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there.

Dear Randian, These statements imply that you consider the native people "no one" and native vegetation rather than industrial crops "a vacant waste". I think those are rude presumptions.

It's more than rude: you should see what Ayn Rand had to say about the native Americans.

    > Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right 
    > to take over this continent.
    > 
    > http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

It is pretty disgusting.

I like this rhetorical technique: completely alter the story then craft an argument based on your version of the story.

In the less artificial world (where orchards are not usually created out of barren moonscapes)- it's always a little odd - and self-serving - the degree to which people think improving land magically cancels all previous taint of expropriation.

> Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there.

Funny that is the childish misconception I had as a child about America before settlers came here. Just an empty lush land, as gift of God, waiting to embrace its new owners.

Preach, brother. SF didn't spring magically into existence either -- it was built once, then destroyed in a quake, and then built again.

I think that things don't have to stop at the orchard. Years ago, there used to be a big flophouse on Columbus Ave, full of trash and indigents. Transients. Beat "poets", the sort of people glorified by City Lights books.

And then they tore it down and built the TransAmerica pyramid! Now that's progress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com