Quote:
also, indigenous laws/customs are not "poorly defined". two of our largest/most well regarded schools (UBC and UofT) have programs in indigenous law. there are written cree/inuit/anishinaabe/etc law manuals. and honestly, most of them are just about sharing/using the land responsibly, living communally, and taking care of people who can't take of themselves. |
Quote:
it was taken from groups of people, who do still exist today. and yes that is what i'm suggesting (and that doesn't equate "kicking" people off their land. there is a difference between private and personal property.) |
Quote:
I in no way wanted to give the impression that I consider anyone on this thread an idiot. Quite the contrary. It's everyone's imperative in life to convince others to do things in a way which will be of benefit the first party. BUT, it's also everyone else's imperative to think for themselves, forego emotional manipulations which lead to feelings of unfounded guilt and to clearly and categorically say "NO". |
Quote:
again, the groups of people the land was taken from still exist. there are still inuit organizations and people. there are metis organizations and people. there are cree organizations and people. why are colonial/individualistic ideas of land "ownership"/stewardship the only valid ones? is the traditional mennonite idea of the commons not valid, for example? i think you, and everyone else, should "own" the national parks/provincial parks, yeah? isn't that the basis of democracy, where the people have power over the way their state/the land is dictated?? most of your discussion of property is gibberish though, as your definition of private property and who owns it is completely warped. i disagree that "the state" is oppressive, the problem is the state we have now oppresses the majority for the benefit of the few. the issue isn't the "state", it's who has power in the state. and again, your silly ideas of private property.. how does a free society have areas where you can't go to access the things you need to survive? the entire idea of private property is oppressive because by offering land and thus resources to a select few who have the means to own it, you're depriving others of using it for their guaranteed human rights to food/water/shelter. if someone owns all the water sources in Canada at some point and refuses anyone access to the water, how is that conducive to a free society? |
Quote:
|
I have a few questions for the people who thinks indengous peoples need to just assimilate/conform/stop victimizing themselves, or whatever:
1) 4% of Canada's population is aboriginal, yet 23% of the federal prisons population is aboriginal. why is this happening? do you blame thousands of individual bad choices/bad people, or is the justice system biased? 2) aboriginal people working full time are paid an average of $26 per hour vs $27.41 for non-indigenous? in a fair, market based society, why would this discrepancy exist? |
the hilarious thing is how much some of you love your "private property" like cars/businesses/houses that are majority owned by fucking banks, thus giving you no actual entitlement to under your definitions.
|
Quote:
Also what do you think happens to people once their land gets seized? Wtf man. If that doesn't sound like "kicking" people off their land I don't know what does. |
Quote:
again, why would people need to be kicked off? in Winnipeg alone there are 6,000 empty units of housing. more than enough for everyone. if people have more land/property than they need? yes, that land should be taken and the resources/profit used for the betterment of everyone in our society. |
I mean, come on people, this is a fucking urban development forum. we all sit on here complaining about the lack of development/poor uses of land, while also arguing about how fucking important it is that the freedom to not use a land to its full potential exists? how much has land speculation done to improve the quality of our city? how much better would our city be if we developed it in a way that was best for the citizens and not what maximized profit for a Toronto developer?
|
Quote:
I'm not sure which "arguments" you want me to engage you on? 1 - If you're ancestors aren't aboriginal you no longer own property 2 - scrap hundreds of years of evolving law/government and impose aboriginal law/rule. Your proposals are so unrealistic that they're not worth discussing... They verge on racist. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
does no one being entitled to anything include seniors? people with certain disabilities? children? |
First Nations
Head horse to answer your 2 questions from a few posts ago , 4% aboriginal population and 23 % in jail ! It sure as hell not from judicial biases , people have to take responsibility for their own actions no matter what race they are ! The other one if aboriginal people are getting payed less an hour for the same work that is totally unfair and should be corrected jus like it should be for any race and gender ! I find it hard to believe that with 2 people working full time that they have to rely on food banks unless they have many kids or some kind of addiction .
|
Aboriginal Issues
BTW Headhorse , one of my cars I own not the bank and my wife and I own our house and cottage! Banks are no longer in play . Not important but you wanted the public to speak !
|
Quote:
Moreover, comforts aren't rights, they are not guaranteed by some sort of code. One enters the workplace with the goal of obtaining the comforts and wealth they desire, the law allows for any individual to do that. I should have been more clear on that: simple participation in the economy is not going to guarantee "comforts". These are acquired through personal gain, this is NOT the responsibility of the government. The government's job is to provide a safety net to help individuals who are: a) unable to provide for themselves; and or b) to help people capable of working but have, through various circumstances, either lost their employment and/or do not have enough income to afford the necessities of life. These measures are to help them return to the workforce and obtain gainful employment at which point the idea is that they no longer have to be subsidised by government. So I suppose what I'm saying is that people are free to live outside of the economy, but they cannot expect to enjoy the same quality of life as those who participate. Once you're in the economy, the only assistance you receive is for extraneous circumstances beyond your control. I don't think it is the government's place, nor anyone else's, to provide luxuries to people pro bono. |
Quote:
The point is: I AND A MAJORITY OF CANADIANS DO NOT AGREE TO THE ARBITRARY QUESTIONING AND REINTERPRETATION OF TREATIES OR GIVING A PLATFORM TO ANYONE SELFISHLY WANTING TO DO SO. Quote:
Quote:
Yes, this is the basis of democracy: the majority of citizens make sure that extremely unevenly educated ideologues such as yourself don't destroy our society from the within. Quote:
Sorry, but things didn't end up this way arbitrarily because some whitey decided a long time ago. Things EVOLVED to work this way due to complex population dynamics over tens of thousands of years (evolutionary time). I actually agree that high population density is unsustainable in the long run, and I also very much agree that current trends in global politics/power dynamics are coming to a head in the much more near term but what you're advocating would make things infinitely worse. It's basically suicide. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 3:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.