Ayn Rand states that Indians didn't have the concept of property rights. I highly doubt this as there are Indian settlements and they do get into conflict when one group trespasses on another's boundary. Examples of conflicts are:
Now, it can be claim that Indians didn't recognize individual property rights. However, what is the difference between tribal property vs. public property then?
The enforcement of collective "property" as such is the denial of the individual's right to property. If everyone in a collective must have access to something, then no individual may own it.
There is no essential difference between public "property" and tribal "property," because they are both instances of collective "property." The non-essential difference between the two is that tribal "property" is of the extended family (the tribe), whereas public "property" is of the state. Where the tribe is the state, the two are the same.
Regardless, both are denials of an individual's right to property.
answered Feb 27 '12 at 10:41
John Paquette ♦