We are not in diagreement. The only difference was that you seemed to say that the argument was either wrong or just ridiculous; I agreed with you, but added that it was used as an important justification. Sorry if I was not clear enough. > > Right. I was not saying it wasn't used as a justification. I was saying I was not > using it, and that it shouldn't be used. Mat > > michael perelman wrote: > > > What Mat wrote below is not quite right. The analogy with the bicycle was in fact > > the most common justification of land theft. Combined with the biblical > > injunction to be fruitful and multiply, the colonists declared that their > > agricultural was more fruitful (more food/acre) than indigenous hunting schemes; > > i.e. God made me do it. > > > > Mathew Forstater wrote: > > > > > If I steal your bicycle, is it legitimate for me to argue that I'm using it > > > productively for a paper route so it should not be returned to you, who only > > > ride it for fun? This is NOT an analogy for indigenous land rights. > > > > > -- > > Michael Perelman > > Economics Department > > California State University > > Chico, CA 95929 > > > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
