{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022752497225305215, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0011098779134295228, 'mean_word_length': 5.111864406779661, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to Professor Flanagan

Thomas Flanagan introduces essentially two new considerations in defence of the Locke-Gauthier argument for expropriation of aboriginal land, the so-called "agricultural argument."1 The first concerns the use of the market system to ensure the efficient distribution of resources; the second denies that the indigenes have what may be called a right to the status quo. These provide an argument which is more sophisticated than Gauthier's original one, but which still does not evade my main objection: that these arguments can be made to work only by "assuming that radically different sets of moral principles operate for different people."2 Without this assumption, the principles which permit the expropriation of indigenes by Europeans would also permit the expropriation of Europeans by indigenes (and others). Central to the agricultural argument, especially in the form in which Gauthier presents it, is a principle of efficiency, essentially the following: if group B is capable of using resources currently used by group A more efficiently than A, then B is morally entitled to expropriate such resources of A 's as will leave A resources sufficient to maintain A's previous standard of life if A adopts B's technology. Applied generally, as in my extrapolation argument, this principle would have effects not likely to be widely welcomed in the West. (Whether this would be a nightmare, as Flanagan says, depends on who is dreaming.) Gauthier, of course, did not want to extrapolate. He claimed that only the indigenes, not the Europeans, should suffer under the principle of efficiency because only they live in a state of nature. Flanagan maintains that the agricultural argument will stand without the tenuous distinction between a state of nature and a civil