Would she agree that an egalitarian band of Indians had the right to massacre a theocratic village of Pilgrims? If she were sincere about her beliefs...yes, she would. But I'm guessing there's no circumstance in which she'd support the brown-skinned conquest of white-skins.
Tribes don't have rights?
Same with Indian nations. They generally didn't write down their laws, but they had countless rules about who wielded secular and religious power, who could marry or live with whom, how one became an adult or a warrior, who could tell stories or perform ceremonies, what happened when tribes fought or traded, etc. And rules about what happened if someone broke the rules.
It's idiocy to think any society was a pure chaos where people acted arbitrarily or at random. Where there were no restrictions and people were free to lie, cheat, steal, rape, or kill. Like any small, intimate group--e.g., a family or clan--tribes probably bestowed more rights than large, impersonal nations.
And again, Indian nations have exercised these rights just like Western nations. Colonial settlers negotiated treaties with tribes for peace, land, or hunting rights. They partnered with tribes against other colonial powers. For a century or two, until it became inconvenient, they treated tribes as equals, more or less.
Hell, the US Constitution grants Congress the right "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." How is that not a recognition of the collective rights of Indian tribes? If nations and states have rights, then so do tribes.
Owners must develop land?
Was Japan justified in bombing Pearl Harbor because we hadn't turned it into a Tokyo-style megalopolis? Could Russia retake Alaska because most of it is lying fallow? Could China drop an occupying force in Yellowstone, the Everglades, or Central Park? Why not, if development is the only standard that matters?
We could apply this belief on a personal level too. If your neighbors don't mow the lawn or take out the trash, can you take their property? How about an unused lot owned by a corporation or the city or county? How is this different from the rationale used to steal Indian lands?
Rand probably would return to the concept of legal ownership. Which means her argument about whether owners develop their property is specious. It's a smokescreen designed to hide her justification for legalized theft.
So the grande dame of libertarianism was a racist who scorned the non-white peoples of the world. No wonder followers such as Rand Paul have opposed the Civil Rights Act. Libertarians can pretend they're interested in the abstract idea of smaller government, but what they really want to do is preserve the white, Euro-American status quo.
Curious that Rand the atheist agreed with the Christians she supposedly disdained. Like her fellow neo-Nazi Bryan Fischer, she was a genocidal maniac. She didn't care that her fellow Euro-Americans conquered and killed perhaps 100 million Indians. They weren't real people to her because they were "savages."
If white people want to commit murder and genocide, they'll invent an excuse for it. As long as thugs like her are in charge, Western nations will continue to destroy indigenous peoples and cultures. That's Rand's "libertarian" message for you: Might makes right.
For more on conservative racism, see:
Teabaggers seek white Christian rule
Rick Perry promotes Christian bigotry
Conservatives use "language of savagery"
Stossel: Indians wer biggest moochers
Fischer: Indians were thieves
Below: "Inferior people deserve to die!"