ABSTRACT
This article argues, against Jeremy Waldron, that Indigenous rectification claims are not fundamentally Nozickean in character. Rather, they appear this way only because they take place against a background of socially robust ownership rights that are treated as consent-requiring, time-insensitive, and inequality-permitting. Indigenous peoples invoke these principles to defend their own holdings in ways that highlight how such pseudo-Nozickean practices deeply structure existing social life. Presuming that these broad practices are unlikely to change, egalitarians must evaluate Indigenous claims within the ambit of the second best. Egalitarians will often face uncomfortable decisions within this context, however, in deciding how to distribute unavoidable inequalities. The article argues that egalitarians should generally support Indigenous property or compensation claims in conditions as we know them and as they are likely to be. The article closes with a brief extension of these arguments to Indigenous claims to political authority.
