Indigenous Rights

[Smokey D]

Should the indigenous peoples of settler states have rights distinct from the rights of ordinary citizens. Why/why not? If so, what sort of rights?

[Aaron]

No. It creates a different set of behavioural values that are adhered to, and disharmony in society between that group and non-indigenous peoples. As hard as it is to say that, when obviously they're disadvantaged by the loss of land and heritage.

[Smokey D]

It creates a different set of behavioural values that are adhered to

Well, presumably that's what all laws do.

Why should we treat aboriginal people differently?

[Aaron]

That's my point.

[here comes the bird flu]

unless the group withdraws their treaties with x nation, they should adhere to the same laws as any regular citizen. if treaties were never drawn up, they should still adhere to the same laws.

[Smokey D]

I'll rephrase.

All laws are essentially behavioural/cultural values manifested as social organisation. At present, the cultural values which are given enforceable legal effect are those of the settler population. Why do should those cultural values be given automatic priority over indigenous values?

unless the group withdraws their treaties with x nation, they should adhere to the same laws as any regular citizen. if treaties were never drawn up, they should still adhere to the same laws.

I don't get how you could arrive at the second point. And what happens if the treaty specifies differential treatment?

[Aaron]

When they affect the greater society economically [ie. preferential allocation of tertiary places].

[Smokey D]

When they affect the greater society economically [ie. preferential allocation of tertiary places].

Well, I suppose I wouldn't call that an indigenous right per se, but rather a right which happens to be held by indigenous people. Maybe I'm being pedantic.

I don't think you can say that indigenous peoples have a right, necessarily, to preferential treatment. It certainly doesn't flow from their indigeneity, at least (there might be a needs based reason for preferential allocation to university, but that would hopefully be open to anyone of equal need). But can we say, for example, that aboriginal peoples are entitled to their ancestral lands, or their ancient practices? Why/ why not?

[Pop music sucks]

Because, in scale, the settler population is more often in higher proportion than an indigineous population. As such, the Settlers hardly ever interact with an Indigineous. From that lack of interaction comes preservation of something they do interact and feel conscious towards, their own population. It's just a micromanagement on a macroscale, akin to an extended family against a stranger (with strange customs); almost everyone would prefer existing in comfortable recognizable customs and patterns(with individuals they know) than with figuring out everything about the Stranger.

[here comes the bird flu]

the settlers make the laws because they are the majority. the indigenous people could not protect themselves against settlers; therefore, they must adhere to the laws of the settler population.

[Smokey D]

the settlers make the laws because they are the majority. the indigenous people could not protect themselves against settlers; therefore, they must adhere to the laws of the settler population

Well, I might agree that democracy ultimately trumps indigenous rights, but I don't see why subordination of indigenous rights should be the starting point. Not to mention that pretty much all English speaking settler societies at least do give some recognition to aboriginal rights.

Because, in scale, the settler population is more often in higher proportion than an indigineous population. As such, the Settlers hardly ever interact with an Indigineous.

Well, in NZ at least, indigenous people make up 22% of the population.

From that lack of interaction comes preservation of something they do interact and feel conscious towards, their own population.]

I don't understand.

It's just a micromanagement on a macroscale, akin to an extended family against a stranger (with strange customs); almost everyone would prefer existing in comfortable recognizable customs and patterns(with individuals they know) than with figuring out everything about the Stranger.

So why can't aboriginal laws prevail in aboriginal communities?

And it's not exactly clear that recognising aboriginal rights would allow aboriginals to enforce customary law over non-indigenous persons.

[siva_chair]

So why can't aboriginal laws prevail in aboriginal communities?

And it's not exactly clear that recognising aboriginal rights would allow aboriginals to enforce customary law over non-indigenous persons.

*Ahem* polycentric legal order

[Smokey D]

Yes I know.

It's another debate best left for the libertarian thread whether this sort of polycentricity is the same as private courts.

[here comes the bird flu]

aboriginal rights?

what rights?

[Smokey D]

Um, the right to ancestral territory, for one.

[siva_chair]

Yes I know.

It's another debate best left for the libertarian thread whether this sort of polycentricity is the same as private courts.

Well, strictly speaking, I don't know if a polycentric legal order is the exact same as private courts, as you could potentially have two "state actors" with two legal orders present (think Roman times, for instance), but a system of private courts would be a polycentric legal order.

[Pop music sucks]

Well, in NZ at least, indigenous people make up 22% of the population.The US, on the whole, is miniscule. At least up here in Alaska it's about 15%.



I don't understand. The Settlers interact with each other more often and complement each other, naturally their laws and social customs would be convenient to their own Settlers.



So why can't aboriginal laws prevail in aboriginal communities?Because the Aboriginals have been supplanted by the Settlers. Their laws change into social customs and traditions. Kind of like Jim Crow laws, except not bigoted.

And it's not exactly clear that recognising aboriginal rights would allow aboriginals to enforce customary law over non-indigenous persons.It doesn't matter anyways since indigenous people hardly make up enough of a percentage in the voter pool to make any sort of difference.

[Smokey D]

Well, strictly speaking, I don't know if a polycentric legal order is the exact same as private courts, as you could potentially have two "state actors" with two legal orders present (think Roman times, for instance), but a system of private courts would be a polycentric legal order.

Yah.

The US, on the whole, is miniscule. At least up here in Alaska it's about 15%.

Interestingly enough, the US probably has among the most extensive rights for indigenous peoples. It's my understanding that Native Americans have full blown jurisdiction on reserves, provided they operate within the broad parameters of the constitution.

The Settlers interact with each other more often and complement each other, naturally their laws and social customs would be convenient to their own Settlers.

Right but at least occasionally settlers interact with indigenous people, and at least some of the time that interaction amounts to abrogating indigenous peoples' way of life without their consent.


Because the Aboriginals have been supplanted by the Settlers. Their laws change into social customs and traditions. Kind of like Jim Crow laws, except not bigoted.

All law is social custom and tradition. Why should our laws be better than their laws?

It doesn't matter anyways since indigenous people hardly make up enough of a percentage in the voter pool to make any sort of difference.

Well, they have the numbers in New Zealand at least. Annd if you start from the assumption that aboriginal rights are preserved until they are extinguished then it matters a lot.

PS this is actually the position in pretty much all western countries.

[Pop music sucks]

Interestingly enough, the US probably has among the most extensive rights for indigenous peoples. It's my understanding that Native Americans have full blown jurisdiction on reserves, provided they operate within the broad parameters of the constitution.Those were set up in the late 60's/early 70's with the triumph of civil rights for blacks. Before that was deplorable conduct of 13 colonies and the subsequent "Manifest Destiny" America.



Right but at least occasionally settlers interact with indigenous people, and at least some of the time that interaction amounts to abrogating indigenous peoples' way of life without their consent.How about all the time. The right to "ancestral land" would be the entire geographic United States, Alaska and Hawaii included. Obviously the government would never allow that, nor would the predominately white population. "Ancestral land" today are the areas of the contiguous U.S. deemed then-unsuitable for the "Manifest Destiny" settlers. Tribes of Native Americans were corralled under pain of death to an area designated by the then-U.S. government with enforcement of its sanctions provided by the U.S. Cavalry.

All law is social custom and tradition. Why should your laws be better than our laws?Our (Alaska Native) "laws" were communist. What ever benefitted the propogation of the population; invariably always a strong sense of unity, selflessness, and priority given to the young and elderly. Land wasn't "owned" in the law-biding sense within our Native culture. Land was just a place to sleep with comfort of family that provided resources. Familial unity is still paramount in our Alaska Native community.

Well, they have the numbers in New Zealand at least. Annd if you start from the assumption that aboriginal rights are preserved until they are extinguished then it matters a lot.Not if the course of the government up until 45 years ago was hardly respective of aboriginal rights, that just breeds contempt for the government.

[Smokey D]

Those were set up in the late 60's/early 70's with the triumph of civil rights for blacks. Before that was deplorable conduct of 13 colonies and the subsequent "Manifest Destiny" America.

I haven't studied the US, but from my understanding the US has always recognised the right of tribes to govern their internal affairs, or at least has been far more willing to do so than NZ, Canada or Australia.

How about all the time. The right to "ancestral land" would be the entire geographic United States, Alaska and Hawaii included. Obviously the government would never allow that, nor would the predominately white population. "Ancestral land" today are the areas of the contiguous U.S. deemed then-unsuitable for the "Manifest Destiny" settlers. Tribes of Native Americans were corralled under pain of death to an area designated by the then-U.S. government with enforcement of its sanctions provided by the U.S. Cavalry.


Well, aboriginal rights are probably extinguishable and are definitely capable of being given up, so I dunno how much of the US would remain ancestral lands for the purposes of aboriginal rights.

The problem is more acute where the government drove the original inhabitants off the land -- although this was certainly not the case everywhere -- but I suppose you could argue the equitable interests of third parties acting in good faith prevent the restoration of full aboriginal title even where the land was not willingly ceded.

Our (Alaska Native) "laws" were communist. What ever benefitted the propogation of the population; invariably always a strong sense of unity, selflessness, and priority given to the young and elderly. Land wasn't "owned" in the law-biding sense within our Native culture. Land was just a place to sleep with comfort of family that provided resources. Familial unity is still paramount in our Alaska Native community.

This seems to be a reasonably common pattern of law and social organiation across indigenous populations. What of it?

Not if the course of the government up until 45 years ago was hardly respective of aboriginal rights, that just breeds contempt for the government.

Well, it matters because it means that groups whose rights have been infringed illegally can seek compensation.

[Simon Cowell]

The right to carry out traditional activities that would otherwise be regulated by Federal, state or local law (i.e. hunting, fishing, whaling) should be recognized. This will more than likely not be an issue for most.

The right to self govern with autonomy from outside influence seems to me as though it has done more harm than good in most cases. Looking at the list of poorest counties in the United States for reference, majority Native American counties made up 4 of the top 5 (the only exception, Starr County, TX was heavy in migrant mexican populations).
Do I think they are incapable of governing themselves? No. However I think a more traditional US Governmental structure (I can't believe I actually am saying this) may be beneficial in raising revenue to fund their desperately needed public services. The services in these counties (and I've been to quite a few very poor reservations) is abysmal and far below the nationally accepted standard. These are schools so bad even the most desperately poor inner city people may raise an eyebrow at sending their children.
Perhaps the tribal structure many reservations still maintain in administrative duties does more harm than good by allowing the apathetic or incompetent to stay in power long after their influence should have been nixed.
(DISCLAIMER: This is by no means an area of my expertise, these are mostly musings on what I DO know or THINK I know.)

[Pop music sucks]

I haven't studied the US, but from my understanding the US has always recognised the right of tribes to govern their internal affairs, or at least has been far more willing to do so than NZ, Canada or Australia.That was only after a myriad array of disrespect. Treaties were originally penned with honest intentions. The Colonial Settlers eventually expanded. Treaties were penned, but taking advantage of those Native Americans occured. They were repeatedly broken or dissolved, often writing that the Settlers were given the larger share in whatever treaty was presented. Look up "Trail of Tears". Look up the history of Native American relocation in general. Your understanding only reprsents 1968 onwards.

Well, aboriginal rights are probably extinguishable and are definitely capable of being given up, so I dunno how much of the US would remain ancestral lands for the purposes of aboriginal rights.They are only given up by the aboriginals because they were forced to. Reservations are all that's left of ancestral lands. Indeed, they are (now) acknowledge and left to be self-governing.

The problem is more acute where the government drove the original inhabitants off the land -- although this was certainly not the case everywhere -- but I suppose you could argue the equitable interests of third parties acting in good faith prevent the restoration of full aboriginal title even where the land was not willingly ceded.



This seems to be a reasonably common pattern of law and social organiation across indigenous populations. What of it?Because there's a difference in how indigenous society and Anglo society adhere to what they perceive as law. Anglo society quantifies anything and everything with one person or group against another in intricate and bureaucratic methodology (as in time consuming court presentation/jury deliberation/judicial decision/eventual enforcement/etc). Indigenous social customs puts heavy recognition of respect in another person. As much as one respects themself should they respect another.



Well, it matters because it means that groups whose rights have been infringed illegally can seek compensation.They can seek it, but hardly are they going to receive it. However, Alaska Natives have definately fared better because they were never under the US's thumb in comparision to what happened to the Native Americans in the contiguous states. That is more than likely due to the fact that Alaska wasn't actively seeked to settle into. The only ones that did were trading with the Alaska Natives. Many Americans didn't want to deal with the harsher environment to gather provisions, those that did respected the knowledge imparted. Winters up here are harsh. Alaska Natives, having been accustomed to the Russians that arrived 60 years earlier, knew when they were being taken advantage of and as such, equality could be achieved easier. Fast forward to the mid 60's Alaska Natives were riding the tide of the black civil rights movement. Eventually it led to the provision of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The provision it succeeded is forgotten to me, but Alaska was divided into regional areas with money sent to the Natives to construct a company. Some of those Native tribes used it recklessly. Most created companies that are still expanding and thriving.

[siva_chair]

I love Indian Casinos.

[Simon Cowell]

obviously they're disadvantaged by the loss of land and heritage.

I find it hard to take this as a true excuse. I do not think it is untrue, however culture can be advanced without being destroyed. The fear of destroying a culture more often than not, ironically, seems to destroy it by not letting it make the changes it needs to survive in a modern world. What if Victorian Age people, seeing their culture changing had decided that they needed to preserve their culture? Well the sad fact is that the societies they were involved in may not have evolved.

Heritage has to be preserved, but in many places in the US especially, the people are going down the tubes. Poverty, joblessness, homelessness, and drug and alcohol problems running rampant on a people seems more like a way that it is being destroyed, and the leadership should be hell bent on advancing. Sacrifices must be made sometimes.

[Pop music sucks]

I love Indian Casinos.I never been to one. I wonder if I would get a discount :p

Alaska forbids gambling. Our regional corporations had to create companies that could develop the commodities on the land. My corporation is the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, one of the richest companies. My dividend last year was $5000:)

[siva_chair]

I never been to one. I wonder if I would get a discount :p

I go to them. The only thing I don't like about the ones in Oklahoma is they have some weird gambling laws. For instance, I can't shoot craps down there. Or play roulette either, but I don't do that anyway because roulette is a silly game.

And no, you wouldn't get a discount, but if your tribe owned a casino, you would probably get a share, similar to how you do with your company up there.

Alaska forbids gambling.

Lame.

[Pop music sucks]

Weird. I knew I wouldn't get a discount, I'm just saying cause I'm an Alaska Native. I'm jesting, hence the smily!

Yeah, there's a small growing movement to get it legalized. However, it always fails, never garnishing the requisite signatures needed to toss the notion onto a provision or bill.

[siva_chair]

Weird. I knew I wouldn't get a discount, I'm just saying cause I'm an Alaska Native. I'm jesting, hence the smily!

Yeah, there's a small growing movement to get it legalized. However, it always fails, never garnishing the requisite signatures needed to toss the notion onto a provision or bill.

You should definitely fight for your right to use your money how you see fit.

I <3 gambling.

[Smokey D]

Pop music, it's not really my intention to go into a close historical analysis of the treatment of indigenous rights in the USA. This thread is meant to examine whether indigenous people should have rights, not whether they have enjoyed them historically.

Because there's a difference in how indigenous society and Anglo society adhere to what they perceive as law. Anglo society quantifies anything and everything with one person or group against another in intricate and bureaucratic methodology (as in time consuming court presentation/jury deliberation/judicial decision/eventual enforcement/etc). Indigenous social customs puts heavy recognition of respect in another person. As much as one respects themself should they respect another.

Without accepting your description of the Anglo relationship with the law, I'm not quite sure this affords a reason not to give indigenous people rights according to their laws and customs.

[Pop music sucks]

Actually, I'm split in the middle with gambling in Alaska. Cost of living in Alaska is expensive, cost of living in villages is exhorbitant. I'm just a little wary that many of the poor Alaska Native alcoholics would waste everything they'll get with gambling.

Pop music, it's not really my intention to go into a close historical analysis of the treatment of indigenous rights in the USA. This thread is meant to examine whether indigenous people should have rights, not whether they have enjoyed them historically.I'm just providing context on why their rights have been denied and why they have presently been left to fend for themselves.

It's not like they have any rights anyways. Their limitations are that it coincides with conduct akin to the Constitution/Bill of Rights, which, in the larger picture, is ironic. Thus it's just Native Americans playing cop on reservation lands.

Up here in Alaska, we are subject to the laws of the United States as any other, because we are U.S. citizens.

[Smokey D]

I thought state laws didn't apply in Indian country.


It's not like they have any rights anyways. Their limitations are that it coincides with conduct akin to the Constitution/Bill of Rights, which, in the larger picture, is ironic. Thus it's just Native Americans playing cop on reservation lands.


Do you think that there should be a greater scope for indigenous rights in teh US?


Up here in Alaska, we are subject to the laws of the United States as any other, because we are U.S. citizens.

Are there reservations in Alaska? It's my understanding only US Federal law applies to reservations, and only if the Congress makes it explicit.

I think you understate the scope of indigenous rights in the US, but as I say I haven't studied the US in particular so I dunno. I'm more familiar with Canada.

[siva_chair]

Actually, I'm split in the middle with gambling in Alaska. Cost of living in Alaska is expensive, cost of living in villages is exhorbitant. I'm just a little wary that many of the poor Alaska Native alcoholics would waste everything they'll get with gambling.

Well that is called accepting responsibility and the consequences of your own actions.

[Smokey D]

Libertarian thread.

[siva_chair]

Oh so now that is the only thread in which libertarians can comment on?

[Pop music sucks]

Depends on where you live. If you live in the contiguous states, reservations have limited sovereignty, their own laws, and a tribal council in a reservation oversees execution of its laws or provisions (implementation of casino gambling); some reservation's laws were crafted by the federal government, others modeled their government after the US, some created something different.

Alaska Natives had an entirely different outcome than what happened to the Contiguous States. The Alaska Natives, with the signing of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act relinquished individual rights to the land in the transferring of titles into 13 regional corporations and 200 village corporations to divy up the 44 million acres and 1971 $963 million. That land and money were divided amongst those corporations to spur economic growth within Alaska Natives as a whole.

Since I'm an Alaska Native, I do not lay claim to land and create an enclave within the US. I am subject to the laws as any other US citizen.

Well that is called accepting responsibility and the consequences of your own actions.Hence why I am staunch in my sobriety of any substance. Alaska Natives and Native Americans have a genetic predisposition for alcoholism. Alcoholism affected my dad (for a while, he did manage to get sober, and has been for 4 years). Coupled with hereditary alcoholism, I am disavowing personal imbibement of any alcoholic beverage. I'm acknowleding that I could have a problem with alcohol and as such, I do not even try to take a risk.

[Smokey D]

Oh so now that is the only thread in which libertarians can comment on?

If you're gonna talk about stuff not related to the thread's topic, yes.


Alaska Natives had an entirely different outcome than what happened to the Contiguous States. The Alaska Natives, with the signing of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act relinquished individual rights to the land in the transferring of titles into 13 regional corporations and 200 village corporations to divy up the 44 million acres and 1971 $963 million. That land and money were divided amongst those corporations to spur economic growth within Alaska Natives as a whole.

This is sort of the process that's going on in New Zealand at the moment, except there is no dry land held under customary title which to form new corporate titles out of.

[siva_chair]

If you're gonna talk about stuff not related to the thread's topic, yes.

Well it kinda is related in the sense that gambling laws for tribes are contingent on whether or not tribes are allowed to be subject ot their own laws and customs.

[Smokey D]

Yeah but let's try and keep the discussion to the topic, rather than just general libertarian principles of freedom and responsibility.

I'm putting my statist foot down.

[siva_chair]

Goddamn fascists....

[Smokey D]

Hey I'm acting under authority from this site's private owners.

[siva_chair]

Yes you are, and you are perfectly within your right to do so. But I'm still saying goddamn fascists because afaik it isn't against the rules.

And you were the one that mentioned statist foots and stuff not me just remember that.

[Aaron]

To follow on from what I was saying earlier [on the sly with some alt+tabbin' at work]. I think it can rendered down simply to this; any minority group is a minority, and the majority's needs will always supersede the minority group's needs and individual requirements when there's an instance of differing needs that don't align. Saying that, where it's not an issue of equality between minority groups and the majority, I don't think there's an issue with indigenous groups being given provisions to preserve their cultural identity.

[Smokey D]

I don't know if minority rights should be subordinated to the majority will all the time.

And also, I don't know if recognising rights as the starting point means that we can't have democratic means of overriding those rights.

[Haliburton]

we should steal aboriginal children to give them a better life

what say you gentlemen

[Mr. Ron]

Should the indigenous peoples of settler states have rights distinct from the rights of ordinary citizens. Why/why not? If so, what sort of rights?
Well, just what kind of rights are we talking about in this situation?

[easylee]

they have the right to DEAL WITH IT

[Iskandar]

Well, just what kind of rights are we talking about in this situation?Collective rights. Recognition of their present status as a minority group, protection against abuses, guarantees to maintain traditional cultural practices.

Probably most importantly, the addressing of past wrongs.

These rights are in addition to their individual rights as citizens of the country.

PS. minority rights should be proportionate to the injustices committed against them in the past or currently.

[Mr. Ron]

Collective rights. Recognition of their present status as a minority group, protection against abuses, guarantees to maintain traditional cultural practices.

Probably most importantly, the addressing of past wrongs.

These rights are in addition to their individual rights as citizens of the country.

PS. minority rights should be proportionate to the injustices committed against them in the past or currently.
Well most of those things are already afforded to minority groups in places like America.

I need some clarification: if great crimes have been suffered by a minority group by the hands of the settlers, should then that minority group have MORE rights than them?

[Haliburton]

why should people born after injustices get help that dont make no sense bro

[Iskandar]

Well most of those things are already afforded to minority groups in places like America.I said they should have rights in addition to those already afforded them.
I need some clarification: if great crimes have been suffered by a minority group by the hands of the settlers, should then that minority group have MORE rights than them?Special rights for their situation, perhaps.
why should people born after injustices get help that dont make no sense broBecause they can still suffer from the effects of them.

[Mr. Ron]

I said they should have rights in addition to those already afforded them.

Like what? They can keep all of their cultural practices and such already.

[Haliburton]

Because they can still suffer from the effects of them.

not really any more than being born into another family in a bad position due to bad historical decisions

[Haliburton]

besides why should those who didnt commit the injustices be paying for it anyway

perhaps canadians should pay compensations to africans for colonialism

[Iskandar]

Like what? They can keep all of their cultural practices and such already.It means a lot to have them guaranteed.

Especially when they're controversial stuff like the Arctic seal hunt.
not really any more than being born into another family in a bad position due to bad historical decisions We try to help them too.
besides why should those who didnt commit the injustices be paying for it anywayBecause it would be wrong to let them go unaddressed.
perhaps canadians should pay compensations to africans for colonialismAfricans don't live in Canada and don't fall under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. Native Americans do.

[Haliburton]

so you do think canadians should pay compensation to africans for colonialism

or do you mean the country where the hard done by people live

so it doesnt count if you're a dick to people and its not in your country

arbitrary as always, i see

[Mr. Ron]

It means a lot to have them guaranteed.


Well yeah, I think that is reasonable.

[Iskandar]

Canadians should pay compensation to aboriginal Canadians.

Because they live in Canada and the Canadian government has sovereignty over them.

[Haliburton]

so you dont care that injustice has been done you just care that they are poor

[Iskandar]

That is unjust, actually. It's our collective fault too.

[Haliburton]

i dont know what you mean

indigenous canadians are way better off than the africans who got screwed by collonialism

get your priorities straight man, there are people in need

[Mr. Ron]

Canadians should pay compensation to aboriginal Canadians.

Because they live in Canada and the Canadian government has sovereignty over them.
Rome should pay me compensation because they enslaved my ancestors.

[Haliburton]

i like how germany pays israel compensation

germans must feel crazy guilty

probably why they ban everything

[Iskandar]

i dont know what you mean

indigenous canadians are way better off than the africans who got screwed by collonialism

get your priorities straight man, there are people in needCanada is responsible for its own citizens. Africans are a separate matter.
Rome should pay me compensation because they enslaved my ancestors.You forgot the part where that doesn't affect you today at all.

[Haliburton]

Canada is responsible for its own citizens. Africans are a separate matter.
so you dont care about injustice just that they are poor

[Mr. Ron]

Canada is responsible for its own citizens. Africans are a separate matter.
You forgot the part where that doesn't affect you today at all.
How do you know that? Perhaps them enslaving generations of my ancestors did change my life and were I am in big ways.

[Haliburton]

what if an african moves to canada

then will you give him compensation for colonialism i mean he's meeting your strange requriements

[Iskandar]

How do you know that? Perhaps them enslaving generations of my ancestors did change my life and were I am in big ways.We can't know which is the point.

We know how it's affected aboriginal Canadians.
what if an african moves to canadaHe will have full access to our generous welfare state.

I don't know why you're trying to place the blame on Canada when we never even had colonies in Africa.

[Haliburton]

I don't know why you're trying to place the blame on Canada when we never even had colonies in Africa.
your ancestors did

[Iskandar]

We can't know whose ancestors did.

We do know the government of Canada (not its people per se) committed injustices against aboriginals.

[Haliburton]

obviously we cant know whose ancestors did it the point was your ancestors were part of a collective that did it, which seems to be justification to you that an individual descendant should be paying compensation despite having nothing to do with it

[Iskandar]

No, not quite. It would be an injustice not to compensate them. The Canadian government (representing Canadians) perpetrated the wrongs, therefore they are the ones who have to pay.

[Haliburton]

representing canadians at the time

this is a new generation of people and politicians

just like canada is a new generation of their non canadian ancestors

[Iskandar]

The government is successor of past ones.

The people are not responsible, the government is.

[Haliburton]

the government doesnt have its own funds to pay for the compensation though so thats only a theoretical distinction

[Iskandar]

No, it's funded by taxes from people and uses them to pay for things that wouldn't happen otherwise because people are either unwilling or unable to do them.

[Haliburton]

why on earth would people be willing to pay compensation for something they had no part in

either people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors or they arent

do you believe in white pride, iskandar

[Iskandar]

It's irrelevant who did it.

What matters is that doing nothing would be an injustice and so the state has to act.
do you believe in white pride, iskandarI believe it exists, but it's dumb.

[Haliburton]

what about nationalism

well obviously you do since your whole concept of paying for injustice is based on nationalism

can i be proud of the things people of this country did before i was born

if not then why must i pay for the bad things

[Iskandar]

This is a red herring.

Since the problems of Aboriginals will not solve themselves, the state must act to help solve them.

[Haliburton]

but thats what i said before

you dont actually care about injustice

you just care that there are poor people and you want to help them

regardless of how they got to be poor

[Iskandar]

It is unjust that Aboriginal people have social problems (including greater poverty than the rest of Canadians) which are caused by events that took place before they were born.

[Haliburton]

they should be given the same amount of help as any equally poor person

not more because of something that happened before they were born

[Iskandar]

No, they should be given help proportionate to their problems.

[Haliburton]

thats what i just said

if an aborigine is earning $30 a week below the poverty line

and a canadian is earning $30 a week below the poverty line

they both have the exact same problem why would you give more help to the aborigine

[Iskandar]

We shouldn't.

We should give more help to Aboriginals because they have a greater proportion of poor people, and people with addictions, and housing shortages, and so on.

[Haliburton]

that doesnt make sense

i just told you they have the same problems why do you still want to give them more

hey, you're black and your fellow black people are more likely to be poor so we're gonna give you some extra cash to make you feel better

[Iskandar]

Aboriginals have greater problems as a group.

If a program tailored specifically for them helps, that's what we should do.

[Haliburton]

well you cant collectively give money to aboriginal people they dont have a group fund you can only address them on an individual basis

and if on an individual basis one has exactly the same problems as an immigrant canadian i dont see why you wouldnt give them exactly the same level of assistance

[Iskandar]

well you cant collectively give money to aboriginal people they dont have a group fund you can only address them on an individual basisThe question is whether we should create a program or programs specifically for them.

Since they have more problems, collectively than other Canadians.
and if on an individual basis one has exactly the same problems as an immigrant canadian i dont see why you wouldnt give them exactly the same level of assistanceWe shouldn't. That's not under dispute.

[Haliburton]

i dont know what programs you could create specifically for them that wouldnt be helping them disproportionately

just because statistically aboriginals are more likely to be poor i dont see how that makes a poor aboriginal any more worth helping than a poor anything else

[Iskandar]

No, it makes them more worthy of it as a group.

[Mr. Ron]

Have a problem?


Throw money at it!

[Haliburton]

No, it makes them more worthy of it as a group.great but that means nothing in practice when problems are individual cases

[Iskandar]

Have a problem?


Throw money at it!Yeah that's what we want to do.
great but that means nothing in practice when problems are individual casesWe allocate more money to them as a group because more people use it.

I don't think there's anything else to discuss.

[Smokey D]

Compensation is a trick issue. If rights were unjustly expropriated, I don't know why there shouldn't be compensation but it's not really the main thrust of my concern. I'm more thinking that aboriginal people should have the right to live according to the cultural practices of their forebears, with a greater degree of autonomy than today.

[Mr. Ron]

Poor people do not know how to invest money, tbh. Every single odd job and place of business I've worked in I've been beside lower - lower middle class people. The instant they get money they blow it on drugs or alcohol. Not all of them are like this, however I'm willing to bet this is a theme that runs through a great deal of that demographic.

[Haliburton]

We allocate more money to them as a group because more people use it.

you dont allocate more to them as a group

they're just more likely to be allocated funds as a group its a different thing

[Haliburton]

I'm more thinking that aboriginal people should have the right to live according to the cultural practices of their forebears, with a greater degree of autonomy than today.
what if the way of life goes against the rights we afford people within the country

ie their children

[Smokey D]

what if the way of life goes against the rights we afford people within the country

ie their children

Well, it's only a starting point. If their way of life is truly incompatible with our non-negotiables, we're not under an obligation to preserve it.

Poor people do not know how to invest money, tbh. Every single odd job and place of business I've worked in I've been beside lower - lower middle class people. The instant they get money they blow it on drugs or alcohol. Not all of them are like this, however I'm willing to bet this is a theme that runs through a great deal of that demographic.

If you were going to compensate, you probably wouldn't distribute money like welfare cheques. You'd set up investment trusts and stuff.

[Haliburton]

well i dunno preventing your kids from living in the modern world seems pretty bad and something we should stop parents from doing

[Smokey D]

well i dunno preventing your kids from living in the modern world seems pretty bad and something we should stop

I don't think respecting aboriginal rights means they have to live as their forebears did. An aboriginal rights must be connected to the ancient practice in some relevant way but nobody is saying it has to be frozen in time.

To force aboriginal children, or anyone, to live as we live is the most fundamental denial of equality.

[Haliburton]

wouldnt that be covered by the regular liberty of all people though

like what sort of stuff might they want to do that they cant do within a reasonably free country

[Smokey D]

wouldnt that be covered by the regular liberty of all people though

like what sort of stuff might they want to do that they cant do within a reasonably free country

Um, well property relationships seems to be a big one. And so are rights to a traditional living. Inheritance and adoption are usually contested issues.

I dunno, indigenous forms of social organisation (like dispute resolution, adjudication, contract, tort, crime etc) are all treated differently in aboriginal communities and why shouldn't they be.

[Haliburton]

its already within individuals rights to organize their own dispute resolution and arbitration if both parties agree to it

so those are within current law im not seeing a problem

[Smokey D]

its already within individuals rights to organize their own dispute resolution and arbitration if both parties agree to it

Not really. For dispute resolution to be binding, it has to meet the requirements of the law (typically, I imagine it involves paying consideration).

But anyway, dispute resolution is only one of the issues I pointed out so...

[Haliburton]

dispute resolution is simple a contract to agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrator

obviously there are limits in most countries to what you can contract but any limits on that should be universal

the same as for any law, the only reason we should have restrictions is to prevent negative things - if its deemed that an aborigine can voluntarily choose to live with that negative thing then why cant the majority of the population have the same choice, they're no less able

[Smokey D]

dispute resolution is simple a contract to agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrator

Yeah which requires compliance with the law of contract, including but not limited to the payment of consideration.

the same as for any law, the only reason we should have restrictions is to prevent negative things - if its deemed that an aborigine can voluntarily choose to live with that negative thing then why cant the majority of the population have the same choice, they're no less able

Okay so why, for example, should the estate of an intestate indigenous person be distributed according to the expectations and norms of the common law rather than the norms and values of his community?

[Mr. Ron]

I don't get why you think righting an injustice entails just giving them money.

[Smokey D]

Um, well actually I never said it did.

I said justice means allowing them to live according to their own laws and practices, provided they were consistent with some basic understandings of human rights.

[Mr. Ron]

Um, well actually I never said it did.

I said justice means allowing them to live according to their own laws and practices, provided they were consistent with some basic understandings of human rights.
Yeah I have nothing against that.

[Haliburton]

Okay so why, for example, should the estate of an intestate indigenous person be distributed according to the expectations and norms of the common law rather than the norms and values of his community?

well i'd be of the personal view that it shouldnt because every individual should choose how their own estate is divided and the state should have no say

that should be the case for aborigines and it should be the case for non-aborigines

but its an error with the law in general not just an aborigine problem

[Smokey D]

well i'd be of the personal view that it shouldnt because every individual should choose how their own estate is divided and the state should have no say

Yes that is why I said died intestate.

As in, in default of having written a will.

Not to mention that 'having written a will' requires compliance with western formalities as well.

So my question is if an aboriginal person has not written a will, why should his estate be distributed according to common law expectations rather than indigenous expectations?

[Haliburton]

i'd still say the state should have no part

whoever claims the land can have it

if the community wants to collectively claim the land and do what they want with it then cool

[Smokey D]

i'd still say the state should have no part

whoever claims the land can have it

if the community wants to collectively claim the land and do what they want with it then cool

So I can claim the land?

[Haliburton]

sure but i think that'd be unlikely since its the community who will be around him when he's dying

and people should just write wills its not that much effort

[Smokey D]

sure but i think that'd be unlikely since its the community who will be around him when he's dying

So the first person to claim the land gets dibs?


and people should just write wills its not that much effort

The expectation that people ought to do what westerners do is an example of how indigenous people are denied equality.

[Haliburton]

So the first person to claim the land gets dibs?
if theres no will

The expectation that people ought to do what westerners do is an example of how indigenous people are denied equality.
well they dont need to write one up its only if they want the government to enforce their desires when it comes to their possessions after death since its kind of much to expect the state to be telepathic, no matter how in line that might be with aboriginal culture

things like contracts are necessary for voluntarism, voluntarism is probably one of our non-negotiables, how would the state know a decision was voluntary without a will, are they just to assume everyone with the tiniest amount of aboriginal ancestry wants to divvy up their land the aboriginal way and that all white people want to use the white people way

[Smokey D]

if theres no will

Although I'm not too keen on getting into the minutiae of wills, what happens if the person didn't write a will because he expected his estate to bequeathed in a certain way because that is how things have always been done.


well they dont need to write one up its only if they want the government to enforce their desires when it comes to their possessions after death since its kind of much to expect the state to be telepathic, no matter how in line that might be with aboriginal culture


Well, I'm not certain that you need written evidence to discern the intention of the testator, although that is a required formality in western law.\


things like contracts are necessary for voluntarism, voluntarism is probably one of our non-negotiables, how would the state know a decision was voluntary without a will

Er, parol evidence.

are they just to assume everyone with the tiniest amount of aboriginal ancestry wants to divvy up their land the aboriginal way and that all white people want to use the white people way

No, I imagine you could work it out from the circumstances.

[Haliburton]

Although I'm not too keen on getting into the minutiae of wills, what happens if the person didn't write a will because he expected his estate to bequeathed in a certain way because that is how things have always been done.
we dont allow others the excuse of ignorance when it comes to the law

there shouldnt be separate laws for separate people, i mean why do we have laws if we dont think them to be objectively the best codes of practice - if these things are of subjective good to different people then why do we have them as concrete laws at all

Well, I'm not certain that you need written evidence to discern the intention of the testator, although that is a required formality in western law.\
well i dont think its necessary to have it in writing, as long as you have clear evidence of intent then its fine - circumstantial evidence cant really determine that

No, I imagine you could work it out from the circumstances.
i think the land claiming thing covers this since its the immediate community who will have first opportunity and ostensibly they will act how the community sees fit

[Smokey D]

we dont allow others the excuse of ignorance when it comes to the law

That doesn't explain why we should coerce people to obey our laws.

there shouldnt be separate laws for separate people, i mean why do we have laws if we dont think them to be objectively the best codes of practice - if these things are of subjective good to different people then why do we have them as concrete laws at all

Well, I'd say we have laws to organise because organisation is better than non-organisation. I don't know if we ever really think that our laws are necessarily the best form of law.

Well, maybe we think of statute law as the best law but I don't see why that would apply to common law. Common law is authoritative because of the past, not because it is believed to serve social policy best.


well i dont think its necessary to have it in writing, as long as you have clear evidence of intent then its fine - circumstantial evidence cant really determine that

Sure it can.


i think the land claiming thing covers this since its the immediate community who will have first opportunity and ostensibly they will act how the community sees fit

Probably.

This stuff about wills isn't really very interesting. How we indigenous peoples to obey our laws is much more what I wanted to discuss in this thread. I suggest we focus on that.

[Haliburton]

Well, I'd say we have laws to organise because organisation is better than non-organisation. I don't know if we ever really think that our laws are necessarily the best form of law.

well i dont see the point in having laws if we dont think they're the best way of doing things, it seems bureaucratic to have laws that arent strictly what we consider absolutely necessary for human interaction

if aboriginals are entitled to their own form of law then why not any other splinter of the population

why not individuals

[Smokey D]

At its heart, indigenous rights theory holds that at least one group in society is entitled to special rights grounded in difference. This is a controversial proposition to western liberal societies raised on the rhetoric of equality before the law. There is deep suspicion that difference rights undermine the democratic value of formal equality and lay the groundwork for the disintegration of modern liberalism. Although the debate is often hyperbolic and laden with racialist and assimilationist undertones, the concern is a legitimate one. Anyone who claims to value both liberal democracy and a theory of indigenous rights must give account of themselves. What follows in this part is this writer’s attempt to provide a rough sketch.

It is suggested that discrimination is problematic only when differential treatment is based on morally irrelevant differences. The corollary to this principle is that material differences justify differential treatment. A central claim of aboriginal rights theorists, therefore, is that the historical uniqueness of indigenous communities is not morally irrelevant, but deeply connected with the problems faced by indigenous peoples. The failure to acknowledge aboriginal rights has not produced greater equality. Indeed, it cannot, for it subsumes aboriginal rights into an alternative paradigm – needs, desert, or free exchange for example – and denies the place of indigenous culture in establishing identity while affirming settler culture the norm. It flattens out multidimensional identities constructed from complex relationships of difference into simplistic caricatures, thus frustrating the role of the law in establishing community wherein differences can interact on more or less equal footing. In short, in the name of equal treatment, non-recognition of aboriginal rights institutionalises inequality.

A common law theory of indigenous rights offers a new way to conceptualise the demands of equality. The common law is a complex and varied animal, and it denies simple definition and categorisation. Nonetheless, it is suggested that one way of understanding the common law is as giving legal effect to the normative force of history and tradition. It affirms the notion that way things have been done should be a guide to action in the present and into the future. It is suggested that the crystallisation of indigenous concerns into legally enforceable rights extends the normativity is part of this process to the aboriginal context. A common law theory of indigenous rights reframes equality not as an ahistorical ‘time slice’ concern but as a matter of historicised justice. It recognises that indigenous peoples are more than ancient and politically irrelevant communities whose identity and history ended at and because of the assertion of Crown sovereignty. It acknowledges that indigenous people whose history’s normative authority continues, at least until it is explicitly silenced by a competent authority. In doing so, aboriginal rights theory recognises that indigenous peoples are not merely passive objects on which the common law is projected, but complex individuals capable of creating norms for themselves. By giving them a place in the past, indigenous rights theory allows aboriginal groups to take their place in the present.

These forms of indigenous rights are common law rights, and are thus capable of binding private individuals and the executive government. Since agents of the state are required to act within the law, common law rights control the actions of the executive government. Such rights establish the relationship between the government and a class of its citizens. They are therefore part of the constitution in its broad sense. Like other common law rights, these rights are subject to potential amendment or extinguishment by Act of Parliament. As such, they are not particularly powerful constitutional limitations. They restrict how the executive government may act as the law stands, but not affect the future content of the law. Rights such as these may be thought of as weakly constitutional. This susceptibility to legislative modification reflects the fundamental assumption of parliamentary supremacy is that the norm-creating power of the present – as manifested through a legislative majority – ought to be prioritised over the normative imperatives of the past. This is the grundnorm of the Westminster political system, and possibly of the common law itself. Nonetheless, there is constitutional space for common law indigenous rights, affirming the value of indigenous pasts, at least until the legislature overrides them. The point of common law indigenous rights is to create constitutional equality between the pasts of indigenous and settler communities. It follows that if indigenous rights are recognised within the common law, they must – subject to constitutional limitations – be susceptible to legislative modification. This is the quid pro quo of recognition by the courts of the common law.

[siva_chair]

Let me guess Smokey this is some of your lawyer homework.

[Smokey D]

Yah

[siva_chair]

Well good luck and buy some coke with the lawyer monies.

[Mr. Ron]

I saved that to MS word just in case I have a night where I'm having trouble falling asleep.


:p

[Haliburton]

I still don't understand why we'd give people inferior rights just because they so happen to be born into an aboriginal community. Principles which are codified into law should be categorically good.

If non-coercion is good for white dudes why isn't it equally good for aboriginals? We require some things to verify non-coercion (like wills, or contracts), so those are necessary for upholding that basic principle. We shouldn't support something that we think is inherently bad (according to our law) simply because it's tradition.

Is preventing tribesmen from hunting and killing each other an imperialistic imposition? We do that because we see it as a categorical good to prevent murder. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to every other law we have.

[Mr. Ron]

hmmmm didn't the British stop Indian wives from throwing themselves on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands?

[Smokey D]

I still don't understand why we'd give people inferior rights just because they so happen to be born into an aboriginal community. Principles which are codified into law should be categorically good.


Well, as I argue, that option is available through parliament. But until parliament has enacted a rule, I see no reason that the legal effect of indigenous norms should automatically be disqualified.

And also, the idea that the common law 'codifies' anything because it's 'categorically good' is pretty funny.


If non-coercion is good for white dudes why isn't it equally good for aboriginals? We require some things to verify non-coercion (like wills, or contracts), so those are necessary for upholding that basic principle. We shouldn't support something that we think is inherently bad (according to our law) simply because it's tradition.


Well non-written contracts happen all the time and it's pretty hard to verify whether they're coercive or not. And how is the distribution of an intestate estate according to the Administration Act not coercive?

And why should we uphold a law that disrupts an otherwise functional group?

Is preventing tribesmen from hunting and killing each other an imperialistic imposition? We do that because we see it as a categorical good to prevent murder. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to every other law we have.

Because killing people is always wrong and the things required by law aren't necessarily directed at things which are always wrong.

Maybe they should be, I dunno, but you'd have to take that up with the judges.

hmmmm didn't the British stop Indian wives from throwing themselves on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands?

Maybe. It's unclear how prevalent that practice actually was, and it may be that the British misconstrued what was essentially spousal abuse for a religious practice.

[Iskandar]

hmmmm didn't the British stop Indian wives from throwing themselves on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands?That's a cultural practice which is harmful. Other Indian cultural practices like eating masala, making offerings to Vishnu and playing the sarod are categorically not harmful to anyone and there is no reason not to tolerate them.

[gregulus]

I fully support eating masala and playing the sarod (RIP Ali Akbar Khan).



I also support Indian women.

[1338 h4x0r]

making offerings to Vishnu

This is offensive to my religion

lol

[legalrights]

There are approximately 370 million indigenous people spanning 70 countries, worldwide. Historically they have often been dispossessed of their lands, or in the center of conflict for access to valuable resources because of where they live, or, in yet other cases, struggling to live the way they would like. Indeed, indigenous people are often amongst the most disadvantaged people in the world.

apostille info (http://www.apostille-info.com)

[Wickerton]

And also, the idea that the common law 'codifies' anything because it's 'categorically good' is pretty funny.
Should

I never said we should keep common law.

Well non-written contracts happen all the time and it's pretty hard to verify whether they're coercive or not.
The government cant enforce whats not verifiable, you can't expect that from it. But if some guy was trying to aggressively collect on a contract that couldn't be verified we should expect the government to stop him. I don't see a reasonable way to have the government help you here without reconciling yourself with the use of 'western' contract principles.

Because killing people is always wrong and the things required by law aren't necessarily directed at things which are always wrong.
Well it should be. Having laws based on simple voluntarism reduces the restrictions placed on aboriginal practice, and it would give them actual equality. Equality under law isn't just about your freedoms; responsibility and accountability are involved too.

That's a cultural practice which is harmful.
Not really if it's voluntary.

[Mr. Ron]

That's a cultural practice which is harmful. Other Indian cultural practices like eating masala, making offerings to Vishnu and playing the sarod are categorically not harmful to anyone and there is no reason not to tolerate them.
Who are you to say that they are harmful? What is harmful is subjective, right?

[Iskandar]

Not really if it's voluntary.The point is that it wasn't really voluntary.
Who are you to say that they are harmful? What is harmful is subjective, right?Physical harm is pretty much a no-brainer, including being burned alive.
I also support Indian women. Me too. I support their not having to commit suicide upon their husband's deaths due to fear of social ostracism.

[Wickerton]

The point is that it wasn't really voluntary.
If they're forced then there are already laws that should apply to stop that, but you should be able to voluntarily throw yourself in a fire.

[Iskandar]

You should, but the fact that many women did suggests they were acting out of internalized social pressures rather than rational self-interest, 'cause dying in a fire is sort of contrary to the instinct of self-preservation.

[Wickerton]

Probably, so the argument should be for making coercion illegal, not Sati itself - then you can have voluntary cultural practice without harm.

But I dunno, it's hard to prevent coercion of children into the mindset for this stuff. Hence why I suggested we steal aboriginal children and give them a better life.

[Iskandar]

The problem with sati is that it was almost always coercive, so unless you could provide it was voluntary after the fact, we assume it was.
Hence why I suggested we steal aboriginal children and give them a better life.We tried that. Residential schools and all. It didn't work.

[Wickerton]

what do you mean it didnt work

it upsetting people isnt it not working

[Iskandar]

It led to a decline in material standards of living and psychological trauma which many had to endure for the rest of their lives.

[Wickerton]

thats why we should snatch them at birth

[Mr. Ron]

The point is that it wasn't really voluntary.
Physical harm is pretty much a no-brainer, including being burned alive.
Me too. I support their not having to commit suicide upon their husband's deaths due to fear of social ostracism.
ban smoking, drinking and drugs, then. You guys are all for those deadly things, except for a woman voluntarily killing herself. Aren't you for assisted suicide, anyways?

[Iskandar]

ban smoking, drinking and drugs, then. You guys are all for those deadly things, except for a woman voluntarily killing herself. Aren't you for assisted suicide, anyways?What.

The point is that it's not really voluntary at all.

[Mr. Ron]

What.

The point is that it's not really voluntary at all.
They do have a choice. They don't have to do it. Yeah, they will be shunned but there is still a choice.


But yeah, aren't you for assisted suicide?

[Wickerton]

well it was technically voluntary nobody can control your muscles and make you jump into a fire yet

[Iskandar]

Technically doesn't matter when you're basically brainwashed by a heavily patriarchal society your whole life to the point that you're willing to jump in a fire for your husband to whom you were arranged to be married at age 5.

[Wickerton]

we're all indoctrinated with something iskandar

just because you think your indoctrination is superior

[Mr. Ron]

Technically doesn't matter when you're basically brainwashed by a heavily patriarchal society your whole life to the point that you're willing to jump in a fire for your husband to whom you were arranged to be married at age 5.
Ok, those are all bad things, but no one is physically forcing them to jump in the flames. I see where you are coming from, and I'm glad the Brits put a stop to it, but in the end its the woman who makes the choice.





and i'm just in a arguing mood

[Iskandar]

I'm not indoctrinated to harm myself for something I shouldn't care about, so it appears to be superior in that respect.

[Wickerton]

what you shouldnt care about is subjective

your indoctrination leads you to believe this

[Iskandar]

Indian women were expected to mourn for their husbands whether they loved them or not.

And immolate themselves whether they wanted to or not.

[Wickerton]

how is that relevant to you being indoctrinated

[Iskandar]

I just told you. Indian women were indoctrinated to harm themselves; Westerners are not.

[Mr. Ron]

I just told you. Indian women were indoctrinated to harm themselves; Westerners are not.
Well, I'd say we're indoctrinated into a society that prides itself on fast food, a sedentary lifestyle, drugs and alcohol.

[Wickerton]

well i already know that

i fail to see how that determines which indoctrination is better

[Iskandar]

Well, I'd say we're indoctrinated into a society that prides itself on fast food, a sedentary lifestyle, drugs and alcohol.I don't think so. We all know the dangers of that lifestyle. I doubt an illiterate peasant woman from India knows about feminism.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't think so. We all know the dangers of that lifestyle. I doubt an illiterate peasant woman from India knows about feminism.
I'm sure a peasant woman knows that fire = ouch

[Wickerton]

iskandar can you stop being racist

before you were telling me black people are stupid

[Iskandar]

I'm sure a peasant woman knows that fire = ouchThey've been told their whole lives it's an honour to die beside their husbands and it's expected of them, so they do it despite their misgivings.

That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Ron can't you see sati was misogynist and stupid and the British were right to stop it. Cultural practices are justified by not harming people but enriching them. Sati didn't do that, and neither do female genital cutting/anti-Semitism/black segregation.

[Mr. Ron]

They've been told their whole lives it's an honour to die beside their husbands and it's expected of them, so they do it despite their misgivings.

That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Ron can't you see sati was misogynist and stupid and the British were right to stop it. Cultural practices are justified by not harming people but enriching them. Sati didn't do that, and neither do female genital cutting/anti-Semitism/black segregation.
I agree that its wrong. But ultimately I do think it is voluntary because you DO have women that don't do it.

[Wickerton]

They've been told their whole lives it's an honour to die beside their husbands and it's expected of them, so they do it despite their misgivings.
you've been told your whole life that its wrong, its expected of you to say so

that doesnt make you right

[Iskandar]

We do now yes, because they know they don't have to and it's illegal. It wasn't voluntary at the time when it was widely practiced. It was unthinkable to not partake in it.

[Smokey D]

Should

I never said we should keep common law.

Well I guess the point is that nothing is good or bad in a vacuum. It has to be considered in context. So rules of adoption and inheritance which make sense in a European value system don't necessarily make the outcome better in non-European value system.

The government cant enforce whats not verifiable, you can't expect that from it. But if some guy was trying to aggressively collect on a contract that couldn't be verified we should expect the government to stop him. I don't see a reasonable way to have the government help you here without reconciling yourself with the use of 'western' contract principles.

Well, as I say we make enforceable contracts everyday which aren't written down.

There are two important things about written contracts. First, they are required for certain types of transactions, especially dealings in land. Second, if a contract is reduced to a written agreement (ie written down) the parties may not lead extrinsic evidence to try and prove the written d0cument did not comprise the totality of the agreement (this is called the parol evidence rule). The corollary, of course, is that where a contract is not reduced to writing, the parties may lead extrinsic evidence to try and prove what the contract was. In particular, the terms of a contract can be inferred from conduct.

The point being that writing a contract down has never been necessary for enforcement. It just means the courts will have to work harder to discover the terms of an agreement.

Well it should be. Having laws based on simple voluntarism reduces the restrictions placed on aboriginal practice, and it would give them actual equality. Equality under law isn't just about your freedoms; responsibility and accountability are involved too.

Yes okay. But this isn't really saying that indigenous people are not entitled their rights.

The problem with sati is that it was almost always coercive, so unless you could provide it was voluntary after the fact, we assume it was.

Sati probably wasn't a practice, or at least is no more a practice than wife beating is in trailer parks.

We do now yes, because they know they don't have to and it's illegal. It wasn't voluntary at the time when it was widely practiced. It was unthinkable to not partake in it.

This isn't true.

thats why we should snatch them at birth

They did that in Australia too.

It didn't work.

[Iskandar]

Sati probably wasn't a practice, or at least is no more a practice than wife beating is in trailer parks.So things can't be cultural practices if they're bad?

What about female genital cutting?
This isn't true.You can't claim coercion was never used, either to force the widows to immolate themselves or to prevent them from escaping during the process.

[Smokey D]

So things can't be cultural practices if they're bad?

That's not at all what I said.

What about female genital cutting?

What about it?


You can't claim coercion was never used, either to force the widows to immolate themselves or to prevent them from escaping during the process.

No, but I do claim that it was not required by law and most women who died in sati were aware of what they were doing and that there was some element of choice involved.

[Iskandar]

That's not at all what I said.Forgive me. I inferred that conclusion.

But why then can't wife-beating be a cultural practice, the way eating spicy curry is? Spousal abuse is deeply ingrained in many traditional, patriarchal cultures. The only different I see is that it's negative whereas playing the sitar is neutral.
What about it?It's a cultural practice that's harmful.
No, but I do claim that it was not required by law and most women who died in sati were aware of what they were doing and that there was some element of choice involved.I never claimed it was required by law.

But I dispute their choice was informed consent.

[Smokey D]

But why then can't wife-beating be a cultural practice, the way eating spicy curry is? Spousal abuse is deeply ingrained in many traditional, patriarchal cultures. The only different I see is that it's negative whereas playing the sitar is neutral.

Well, it probably is a practice in some cultures. My point was that we probably wouldn't say it is a practice in our culture. Sati appears to have inhabited a similar space in Indian culture ie it happened, and it arose in part out of the cultural expectations of the community but it was not widespread enough to constitute a practice as such.

I never claimed it was required by law.

But I dispute their choice was informed consent.

Sure but you said "It was unthinkable to not partake in it"

[Iskandar]

Well, it probably is a practice in some cultures. My point was that we probably wouldn't say it is a practice in our culture. Sati appears to have inhabited a similar space in Indian culture ie it happened, and it arose in part out of the cultural expectations of the community but it was not widespread enough to constitute a practice as such.K but how widespread does something have to be in order to be a cultural practice. Not everyone drinks beer, but it's still part of Canadian culture.
Sure but you said "It was unthinkable to not partake in it"That's nothing to do with law though, or I'd have said "it was illegal to not partake in it."

Sati was a phenomenon based on cultural and religious expectations, as we've said, and to refuse it was considered dishonourable. Therefore we have cases of women being forced to go through with it and receiving ostracism if they didn't. It also raises the question of why women voluntarily chose to burn themselves alive; with that kind of heavy social conditioning, how much can we say consent factored into their decision?

[siva_chair]

That's nothing to do with law though, or I'd have said "it was illegal to not partake in it."

Sati was a phenomenon based on cultural and religious expectations, as we've said, and to refuse it was considered dishonourable. Therefore we have cases of women being forced to go through with it and receiving ostracism if they didn't. It also raises the question of why women voluntarily chose to burn themselves alive; with that kind of heavy social conditioning, how much can we say consent factored into their decision?

Umm same with Japanese samurai committing seppuku...

They still made the conscious to partake in that cultural norm, similar to how you are partaking in your cultural norm to criticize that practice.

Or are you saying that individuals do not have the right to consciously choose to partake in that cultural norm and they should be forbidden to?

[The Angry God]

nope it is the way of capitalism and democracy that the strong should prosper and the weak perish after all nobody has the right to own property unless they have money to buy it since the natives didn't pay the government for the land they should be made to live in homeless shelters like everyone else

that is the American way that is the way of Democracy and True Freedom money is freedom therefore they should kill them all and all the poor and anyone who can't afford to survive in the system

[Iskandar]

^Bad troll.
Umm same with Japanese samurai committing seppuku...

They still made the conscious to partake in that cultural norm, similar to how you are partaking in your cultural norm to criticize that practice.

Or are you saying that individuals do not have the right to consciously choose to partake in that cultural norm and they should be forbidden to?Consent can be a slippery thing. Women in India were socially conditioned to burn themselves alive; if they hadn't been, would they still have chosen to do it? I don't think so, since they don't these days.

[siva_chair]

You are socially conditioned to criticize this practice.

[Iskandar]

Probably, but I can freely choose not to, since my culture is founded on individual freedom.

[siva_chair]

Probably, but I can freely choose not to, since my culture is founded on individual freedom.

Yeah those indian women could have chosen not to as well.

[Iskandar]

Missing the point. When gender roles are as rigid as they were in classical India and societal expectations influenced the behaviour of people to a greater degree, consent becomes diminished in importance. I don't know why you think all decisions are made in a vacuum.

[siva_chair]

I never said all decisions are made in a vacuum.

[Iskandar]

I'm claiming external factors can mitigate consent. You appear to be treating consent like it's a constant, which strikes me as oversimplifying things. I don't know how much further we can take this.

[siva_chair]

As far as you wish to go sweetheart.

I never said "consent was a constant." You appear to need better reading skills.

The practice wasn't required by law = there was an element of choice involved = kindly take your nanny state elsewhere.

[Smokey D]

If your body is property, then you are forbidden from killing yourself because of the equitable interests your friends and relatives have in you being alive.

[Iskandar]

I never claimed you did either.

It also has zilch to do with the state. "An element of choice" simply isn't good enough for something as serious as women burning themselves alive.

[siva_chair]

If your body is property, then you are forbidden from killing yourself because of the equitable interests your friends and relatives have in you being alive.

Lol no they don't own any part of me that isn't how it works.

I never claimed you did either.

Umm you said I appeared to be treating it as a constant. I wasn't and nothing I said even implied that.

It also has zilch to do with the state. "An element of choice" simply isn't good enough for something as serious as women burning themselves alive.

No by god we need some entity to step in and protect people from their own choices dammit.

[fafafafa]

Women in India were socially conditioned to burn themselves alive; if they hadn't been, would they still have chosen to do it? I don't think so, since they don't these days.
you're socially conditioned to do lots of things i already told you this why do you think your conditioning is better than theirs

seems pretty stupid to me

[Iskandar]

Umm you said I appeared to be treating it as a constant. I wasn't and nothing I said even implied that.Do you believe there are circumstances which can mitigate the principle of consent?
No by god we need some entity to step in and protect people from their own choices dammit.If people do things out of Stockholm syndrome rather than informed consent, ya we do.
you're socially conditioned to do lots of things i already told you this why do you think your conditioning is better than theirs
Because I'm not conditioned to harm myself.

And people in Canada believe women are equal to men and don't have to burn themselves alive because their husbands die.

[fafafafa]

Because I'm not conditioned to harm myself.
your views on what is harmful are conditioned

[Iskandar]

Physical harm is kind of a no-brainer.

[fafafafa]

ah the classic everyone knows argument

[Iskandar]

If we claim to know what harm is at all, how does being immolated not qualify.

[fafafafa]

subjective benefit resulting from the action

a false belief elicits the same feelings of pleasure

[fafafafa]

why should we stop people self immolating if its what the society wants even if it is harmful anyway

[siva_chair]

Do you believe there are circumstances which can mitigate the principle of consent?

Yah probably.

If people do things out of Stockholm syndrome rather than informed consent, ya we do.

Why?

[Iskandar]

why should we stop people self immolating if its what the society wants even if it is harmful anywayBecause what the society wants is not necessarily what the women want, if they were not conditioned to do so.
subjective benefit resulting from the action

a false belief elicits the same feelings of pleasure You think people enjoy being burned alive? No, they saw it as a duty.
Why?Because if that is the case, it's not really consent, at least not under the legal definition as we use it.

[siva_chair]

Because if that is the case, it's not really consent, at least not under the legal definition as we use it.

Well in that case parents better stop raising children because they use the same emotional attachment mechanism that people with Stockholm Syndrome do. We can't have those children running around not consenting to emotionally attaching themselves to their parents.

[Iskandar]

The parents are responsible for their children and intervene when they do things that are contrary to their expectations. When the parents are irresponsible, the state intervenes. Nice try.

[siva_chair]

The parents are responsible for their children and intervene when they do things that are contrary to their expectations. When the parents are irresponsible, the state intervenes. Nice try.

But they didn't consent so it is wrong according to your reasoning.

[fafafafa]

Because what the society wants is not necessarily what the women want, if they were not conditioned to do so.
who cares, we're utilitarian, we maximize pleasure right

or is this another magical instance where the rules dont apply, oh i like those

[Iskandar]

Being burned alive does not maximize pleasure for women, so no.
But they didn't consent so it is wrong according to your reasoning.Children can't give informed consent.

[fafafafa]

iskandar i think thats irrelevant if it maximizes pleasure for the society as a whole

women whose husbands are dead are a small minority

stick to your principles

[Iskandar]

Show sati maximizes pleasure for everyone.

[fafafafa]

obviously it does or the community wouldnt push them to do it hurr

if the community doesnt push them to do it then they are free not to do it and theres no problem

[Iskandar]

They did it out of religious and social obligations. That doesn't equate to pleasure.

[fafafafa]

pretty sure that counts as the wider community's pleasure

why would people do these things if it didnt make them feel better

[siva_chair]

Children can't give informed consent.

Well you just said indian women can't either so....

[Iskandar]

Of course they can. They are right now in modern India.

But classical India was a much more rigidly controlled, patriarchal environment.

[siva_chair]

Of course they can. They are right now in modern India.

But classical India was a much more rigidly controlled, patriarchal environment.

See we should abolish the institution of parenthood so these children can have informed consent. The legislature knows how to raise children best, so let them do it, right. Just like they know what is good for these indian women and what is not.

[Iskandar]

What.

[siva_chair]

What.

By your reasoning we need legislative decisions to make sure these women are being able to utilize informed consent so they don't throw themselves in the fire. It follows we should do the same for children no? Afterall, it is the institution of parenthood that prohibits children from utilizing informed consent. We shouldn't allow people to raise children because it influences their behavior just like societal pressures do with indian women, so they don't truly have a choice or the ability to consent in an informed manner.

[Iskandar]

Children aren't fully mentally and emotionally developed. Your analogy fails.

[fafafafa]

pretty sure what society calls children now are psychologically able to make informed choices

in fact kids overestimate the risks of situations

[die of starvation]

i agree with that
but i also don't care, no one has the right to light themselves on fire it's ridiculous to think they do

also
parenthood and discretionary reproduction in general should be abolished

also also
as far as i'm concerned natives can have all the rights they want as long as they don't impede the progress of humanity in general by having them
in practice this would be limited because the types of things natives tend to want to do do impede the progress of humanity

[siva_chair]

Children aren't fully mentally and emotionally developed. Your analogy fails.

Wrong.

Obviously these women who throw themselves in the fire are prohibited when it comes to mental and emotional development by your reasoning. Afterall, they don't have informed consent because of these outside societal factors.

You shouldn't confuse your failure to understand the analogy with an actual failure of the analogy.

[Iskandar]

No, your analogy simply failed. Children are not adults and we shouldn't attempt to treat them as such. They lack the maturity, knowledge and life experience of adult men and women. We proscribe a number of behaviours to them because of this.

[siva_chair]

No, your analogy simply failed. Children are not adults and we shouldn't attempt to treat them as such. They lack the maturity, knowledge and life experience of adult men and women. We proscribe a number of behaviours to them because of this.

Obviously these indian women don't possess these things either if they can't possess informed consent.

And also, how do you know that children are unable to able to consent? If indian women are unable to consent because of societal pressures, how do you know that children aren't able to consent due to parental pressures (i.e. how treat them)?

[Iskandar]

Indian woman are fully capable of informed consent but their repressive environment mitigated that.

Children aren't as mature as adults anywhere.

[siva_chair]

Children aren't as mature as adults anywhere.

That is because we treat them as such as to negate their ability to consent. Much like societal pressures do to these indian women.

[Iskandar]

Burden's on you to show me that children are capable of making adult decisions. At what age is the arbitrary cutoff? 10? 5?

[siva_chair]

Burden's on you to show me that children are capable of making adult decisions. At what age is the arbitrary cutoff? 10? 5?

Actually the burden should be on you to show that they are unable to since you originally made the assertion that they could in fact not.

Also, second part is a more fitting question towards your assertion.

[Iskandar]

I already said they lack emotional and mental maturity. You disputed that. Show me why.

[Danish]

The age at which children are capable of making responsible decisions and the ramifications of that have been debated hotly in most societies. There is no universal consensus.

[siva_chair]

I already said they lack emotional and mental maturity. You disputed that. Show me why.

Yeah I don't see why I need to dispute your bare assertions.

I mean, I guess I can just say "Nuh uh."

[die of starvation]

phrasing is as 'children lack maturity' is kind of begging the question because of course they do
i guess you should explain why maturity is necessary to informed consent

[Iskandar]

Ability to grasp and understand fully complex situations. Knowledge of the implications of their decisions derived from education and life experience.

[siva_chair]

People don't receive the same education and life experiences so your criteria are completely arbitrary.

[Iskandar]

They do receive them though and through a standardized education system.

[Smokey D]

Are you seriously suggesting that people's life experience is the same and that people experience education the same?

[Iskandar]

Not at all. Everyone does receive education and life experience though.

The age at which we think they've acquired enough to make informed decisions varies but a toddler is clearly not capable of consent in the same way an 18 year old is.

[Smokey D]

The age at which we think they've acquired enough to make informed decisions varies but a toddler is clearly not capable of consent in the same way an 18 year old is.

But presumably there are some adults whose life experience, natural inclination and education would leave them unprepared for some of the decisions they make.

[Iskandar]

Possibly. Should we decide on a case by case basis?

[fafafafa]

yes

[Iskandar]

And how would that be feasible?

[fafafafa]

standardized psychological testing, i told you that before

[Iskandar]

By whom? The state?

[fafafafa]

well you know i dont believe in the state but the state could do it

[Iskandar]

And in the absence of the state?

[fafafafa]

private companies would do it what else was my answer going to be

[Iskandar]

And what material advantages would there be to this to justify changing the current system.

[fafafafa]

that we can accurately judge when someone should be able to make their own decisions

isnt that self evident

[siva_chair]

that we can accurately judge when someone should be able to make their own decisions

isnt that self evident

No dude because then he couldn't lump people into convenient groups to defend them.

[fafafafa]

dude sexism is everywhere dont think it wont be in these tests

they'll be made by men and you know what men are like with sexism

[Iskandar]

that we can accurately judge when someone should be able to make their own decisions

isnt that self evidentWe would have to be able to assume that there are a sufficient number of people below the minimum age with the maturity to make these decisions or it's not worthwhile. Plus the costs associated with the transition.

It would require an extensive cost-benefit analysis.

[fafafafa]

1 person is a sufficient number when they are being oppressed unnecessarily

you cant bear to see a single layabout not get his welfare check but you dont care about this, how typical

although its a good example of how private enterprise can better do things

ps you've made this thread about libertarianism now why do you always do this iskandar why

[Iskandar]

Well, when libertarians argue from a libertarian standpoint, and I respond to them.

PS. one person is not sufficient unless they are somehow important enough to outweigh the associated costs and risks.

[fafafafa]

so if it costs more to save a persons life than they will pay back in taxes they are expendable?

neat

[Iskandar]

That would be illegal duh.

[fafafafa]

i know it would be, why do we do it if the cost is greater

and why do you support it

when you wont support other things where ooh the costs will outweigh the benefits

are you making up your own definition of utilitarianism again i wish you'd stop that

[Smokey D]

Libertarian thread.

[Metal_head]

Well I believe that there should be one law for all of us which would protect all of our heritages and unify us into a single being the nation. So far the methods of trying to integrate immigrants, natives and settlers force was the predominant factor. If I say Hello, let it be universal let us gather and discuss what concerns us mostly over a cup of coffee at Timmy's or 1/4 with cheese in our town or listen to Bob Dylan.