Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-5wl6q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:04:10.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Professor Flanagan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Nicholas Griffin
Nicholas Griffin
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reply
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 603 - 606
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Flanagan, Thomas, “The Agricultural Argument and Original Appropriation: Indian Lands and Political Philosophy,” this Journal 22 (1989), 589–602.Google Scholar All references will be to this article unless otherwise cited.

2 Griffin, Nicholas, “Aboriginal Rights: Gauthier's Arguments for Despoliation,” Dialogue 20 (1981), 690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Flanagan calls it “original appropriation” but, since the indigenes have already appropriated the land (an appropriation recognized, for what it is worth, by Canadian law), its reappropriation by Europeans would seem to be more like second-hand original appropriation!

4 One could, of course, make the efficiency of the market into an analytic truth—as is sometimes implicitly done in laissez-faire apologetics. But no policy prescriptions follow from a tautology, and all substantive issues still have to be decided although they are couched in new terms.