Sentinelese tribe: Rare footage captures one of world's last uncontacted indigenous people

[Anti Federalist]

The way they treat outsiders is indicative of their level of respect for mankind in general

If I were to look out of my windows and see a bunch of naked Sentinelese creeping around with arrows, you can be pretty sure they would be met with hot lead.

Everything else you said

You do have a valid point, however.

Just because a society is "primitive" does not make it better, or more free.

That said, I'm still of a mind to just leave them be.

That's part of freedom on my part, even though I bitch about it: leaving people be, even if that means leaving them to be reprobates.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Are they cannibals?
Do they have sex with infants?
What about human sacrifice? Do they burn their own children to make the coconuts grow?
Do they practice slavery?

There are tons of reasons not to leave them alone. The way they treat outsiders is indicative of their level of respect for mankind in general.
It seems pretty low. You don't just sneak up on sleeping fishermen and murder them if you respect humanity.

So there are probably all sorts of unpleasant surprises to find there. Not everything is fundamentally a property rights question. In fact, you can't even discuss property rights until you accept the concept of rights and the equality of the rights of disparate people.
The Sentinalese clearly don't respect the rights of others. They are a prime example of what statists say the world would be like without the state.

Well said

The myth of the noble savage dies hard...

 

[Anti Federalist]

Well said

The myth of the noble savage dies hard...

So you don't believe that people should be left alone to do what they want, even if what they are doing you find repugnant?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So you don't believe that people should be left alone to do what they want, even if what they are doing you find repugnant?

People should not be left alone to do what they want if what they're doing is unlibertarian: e.g. murdering one another at an alarming rate.

...as our hunter-gatherer pals have always tended to do.

 

[Dr.3D]

So you don't believe that people should be left alone to do what they want, even if what they are doing you find repugnant?

I do, who's to say what I find repugnant isn't a product of brainwashing throughout my life? Who am I to impose my belief system on others?

 

[Origanalist]

People should not be left alone to do what they want if what they're doing is unlibertarian: e.g. murdering one another at an alarming rate.

...as our hunter-gatherer pals have always tended to do.

Are they murdering one another, or just the ones who come from our culture into their territory?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I do, who's to say what I find repugnant isn't a product of brainwashing throughout my life? Who am I to impose my belief system on others?

So if the Imakilya tribe comes to town and, well, wants to killya, you wouldn't have any objections?

...wouldn't want to impose your anti-killing belief system on them?

 

[Origanalist]

Well said

The myth of the noble savage dies hard...

Right, because they haven't even discovered how to kill on a massive scale yet. Frikkin barbarians.

 

[Origanalist]

So if the Imakilya tribe comes to town and, well, wants to killya, you wouldn't have any objections?

...wouldn't want to impose your anti-killing belief system on them?

Are they coming to town? It doesn't seem likely.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Are they murdering one another, or just the ones who come from our culture into their territory?

Evidently, no one has any idea what they're doing, beyond killing people who land on the island.

But historical hunter-gatherer societies had extremely high murder rates, so it's reasonable to infer that they do to.

Are they coming to town? It doesn't seem likely.

Point is, if one is serious about "not imposing one's belief system on others," that means tolerating any kind of behavior.

...murder, rape, theft, anything.

That's certainly not the libertarian position; libertarianism isn't "everybody can do whatever he wants."

 

[Origanalist]

Evidently, no one has any idea what they're doing, beyond killing people who land on the island.

But historical hunter-gatherer societies had extremely high murder rates, so it's reasonable to infer that they do to.

Er, a link to those stats?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Er, a link to those stats?

From Steven Pinker's "Better Angels Of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined."

 

[Origanalist]

From Steven Pinker's "Better Angels Of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined."

That's not much help.

 

[Dr.3D]

Evidently, no one has any idea what they're doing, beyond killing people who land on the island.

But historical hunter-gatherer societies had extremely high murder rates, so it's reasonable to infer that they do to.

Point is, if one is serious about "not imposing one's belief system on others," that means tolerating any kind of behavior.

...murder, rape, theft, anything.

That's certainly not the libertarian position; libertarianism isn't "everybody can do whatever he wants."

So you advocate invading their island and setting them straight as to how to behave?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So you advocate invading their island and setting them straight as to how to behave?

Considering it's one little island with 50-500 people living on it, it's not really a top priority...

...I'm mostly using them as an example to make a larger point.

But, yea, in principle I'd be for finding out what's going on there, and then intervening depending on what's found.

Do they have a murder rate 10x the average in India?

Do they eat people?

Do they sacrifice children to the coconut Gods, as fishy wondered?

 

[Origanalist]

So you advocate invading their island and setting them straight as to how to behave?

Sure sounds that way. Someone has to set those savages straight.

 

[Origanalist]

Considering it's one little island with 50-500 people living on it, it's not really a top priority...

...I'm mostly using them as an example to make a larger point.

But, yea, in principle I'd be for finding out what's going on there, and then intervening depending on what's found.

C'mon, fess up. You're really George W. Bush, right?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

That's not much help.

Well, the book's not available for free online, so I can't link you to it...

Here's an article with quotes from Pinker summarizing the data:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-decline-of-violence/

As for wars, prehistoric peoples were far more murderous than states in percentages of the population killed in combat, Pinker told me: “On average, nonstate societies kill around 15 percent of their people in wars, whereas today’s states kill a few hundredths of a percent.” Pinker calculates that even in the murderous 20th century, about 40 million people died in war out of the approximately six billion people who lived, or 0.7 percent. Even if we include war-related deaths of citizens from disease, famine and genocide, that brings the death toll up to 180 million deaths, or about 3 percent.

 

[Dr.3D]

Considering it's one little island with 50-500 people living on it, it's not really a top priority...

...I'm mostly using them as an example to make a larger point.

But, yea, in principle I'd be for finding out what's going on there, and then intervening depending on what's found.

Do they have a murder rate 10x the average in India?

Do they eat people?

Do they sacrifice children to the coconut Gods, as fishy wondered?

So you think it's a good idea to invade them and have a war with them and possibly kill them all, just to make sure they don't kill each other?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

C'mon, fess up. You're really George W. Bush, right?

So, in your view, no matter what is happening on that island, no outsider should intervene?

Because the group on the island has some kind of right to settle things amongst themselves?

...do the victims among the group have any rights, or just the collective?