Matthew Yglesias defends Indian Removal (without realizing it)
In attempting to defend President Obama’s outrageous “you didn’t build that” statement, Matthew Yglesias argues against the idea that a person can deserve his property at all. In his view, “the real world human practice of property rights has very little to do with” the idea of moral desert. Instead, he counsels us to “define a set of property rights that, on a forward-looking basis, are likley to lead to human prosperity.”
That, of course, is exactly what Georgia did to the Cherokee. The entire policy of Indian Removal was based on the idea that society should be able to rearrange property rights to encourage greater social wealth on a “forward-looking basis,” regardless of whether or not the Indians were justly entitled to that land. Wealth redistribution to serve the needs of future expansion was the unceasing and explicit demand of those who expropriated land from the Indians.
Yet Yglesias tries simultaneously to invoke the dispossession of the Indians as an historic crime, while supporting the argument upon which it was premised. Indian Removal certainly was a moral crime, but only because it was contrary to the conception of moral property rights. Yglesias–whom we last saw arguing that the colonists shouldn’t have rebelled against the British in 1776–can’t have it both ways.
It’s typical of the left to argue that all property rights are somehow tainted by past injustices and therefore that government can redistribute to whatever groups wield sufficient political power to demand a share of the spoils. Of course, that is a non sequitur; past injustices do not justify new ones, against people who did not commit the original wrong. It’s true that, as Twain said, there’s not a foot of land that has not been stolen and restolen countless times. But isn’t this good reason to stop stealing what belongs to people? Instead of institutionalizing as social policy into the indefinite future a system that deprives people of their earnings, their belongings, and their substance, to serve priorities that others consider more important? The American Indian suffered terrible abuses, and stands today as an object lesson in what happens when government is given too much power to seize and redistribute property. Yet Yglesias praises that state of affairs and urges its repetition! That really is outrageous.
What to read next
Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court endured the partisan gauntlet of the Senate hearing on his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing only confirmed what has been known for some time: Justice Willett will serve the federal judiciary with integrity, wit, and commitment.
Earlier this year, the City of Seattle shocked the people of Washington—indeed, many across the nation—when it decided to impose an income tax on so-called “high-earners” in direct defiance of the Washington State Supreme Court, which has repeatedly held that the state constitution’s uniformity clause prohibits targeted income taxes.
PLF and several allied organizations submitted a petition for rule-making to the federal agencies that administer the Endangered Species Act. The petition asks the agencies to define “species” and “subspecies,” terms which, although critical to the Act’s operation, are left undefined by statute and regulation.
Next Friday, I’ll be presenting oral argument in the Ninth Circuit in Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould. The case involves a challenge to the ALRB’s access regulation, which allows union organizers to use the private property of agricultural employers to solicit potential union members.