Notice to Aboriginal Voters: Globe and Mail Confirms Thomas Flanagan still a

[UberCree]

Are you saying the answer to every challenging social problem lies in business or economics?

In that vein.... Economists always argue for lowering taxes, as they claim it increases productivity, buying, growth, encourages business, improves personal health etc. right?  Then wouldn't having the lowest socioeconomic group in Canada pay no taxes be beneficial economically to them and Canada?  Irregardless of treaties or constitutional rights or supreme court decisions, economically speaking wouldn't you want to have people that are substancially poorer pay no taxes to 'stimulate' prosperity?
Or does that only work for rich people and corporations?

 

[GO!!!]

Are you saying the answer to every challenging social problem lies in business or economics?

I would say that not all of them, but a good portion. I grew up  on reserves as a white kid (lots of fun) but the common thread in all of them was a lack of economic opportunity. The only jobs were with the government, they were usually seasonal, and there was'nt really much to do (tree - spacers hired on the tundra was a prime example)

I believe (like 48th) that if a community is not economically productive, it will not be socially productive either. Look at the similarities between economically depressed areas, both native and non. Both will have high levels of drug use, crime, alcholism and suicide. The young people will leave. The town will fall into disrepair. Economically vibrant areas have lower levels of all of the above afflictions, although too much can also be bad, boom towns like Fort McMurray are an example of this.

Our Aborigional policies concentrate on keeping natives on the reserves, even if there is nothing there (economically) for them. The same effort is not made for small rural towns in Saskatchewan or the maritimes, they are allowed to die, and we see this in the fact that there are a great many maritimers working in the military and the Alberta oil and gas industry. They were economic migrants. THIS IS A GOOD THING!!

If my ancestors had not done this, we would still be butchering sheep and the king's men in Scotland, with no hope of ever building much wealth or influence.

It is not fair to people who do move accross the country to seek economic benefit to be taxed to support the culture and lifestyle of others who refuse. We moved from Scotland two hundred years ago, and I still eat Haggis, wear a kilt, drink scotch (mmmm scotch) and am learning to play the bagpipes. The loss of geographical territory is not tantamount to genocide, or cultural destruction, and I think that those who say it is are attempting to perpetuate the status quo.

My Parents, my wife, myself and my brothers have all moved thousands of kms from our birthplaces to find good jobs. The family farm was sold, as it was not making money. We went where the work was, and we did well because of it. I have no doubt that if we were still eking out a living on that tiny farm, we would not be nearly as well off as we are now. If I have to do it, why should you be any different? I thought we were equal?

 

[48Highlander]

Productivity is linked to economics, not society. Society is about being human and your statements in this thread are those that can only come from a brash, ignorant and bigoted young man with a lot to learn about being human.  Un-frig yourself before somebody does it for you.   

Brash, ignorant, and bigoted, eh?  Let me guess, you're voting Liberal?

Others here have already answered you, and I don't have much to add.  I'm simply going to re-iterate that productivity is VERY dependant on the society.  If you encourage a culture of dependance, you encourage stagnation.  You also create opportunities for corruption.  Eventualy you have a system where the majority of the people have no goals and no hopes, and the few with ambition mainly succeed by exploiting the system.  That's what we're doing to the Natives, and, as A_Majoor pointed out, it's the major factor behind the demise of the USSR.  You'd think we would have learned that lesson by observing them, but it seems most people still don't get it.

 

[TCBF]

" Then wouldn't having the lowest socioeconomic group in Canada pay no taxes be beneficial economically to them and Canada?  Irregardless of treaties or constitutional rights or supreme court decisions, economically speaking wouldn't you want to have people that are substantially poorer pay no taxes to 'stimulate' prosperity?
Or does that only work for rich people and corporations?"

- The trouble is connecting that opportunity with the real economy.  Treaties limit the economic responsibilities of on-reserve corporations.  Look at the example of the Sask Tow Truck Operator whose company billed a Sask reserve for thousands of dollars in recovery of school buses etc.  They did not pay.  He went to court, and the court said they do not have to pay.

Within 24 hrs, I bet every business within 200 miles of a reserve got THAT message loud and clear.  The playing field must be level, or the other team won't show up.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

Come one, if an 18 year old student gets it. I'm sure all those powerful native leaders and their lobbyists, with all that wonderful education can figure it out. Or maybe is it because being a 'chief' is, at the upper levels, a lucrative business...

See how easy this is once you step back and look at the problem rationally? We set up a system which has been hijacked for the benefit of the few. Dump the system and reinstitute Equality at Law, and in a generation this will be a bad memory, and people with aborigional heritage will stand side by side with the rest of us as Canadians.

As for the poster who asked if every problem can be expressed in economics, the answer is yes. Economics describes how resources are allocated by intelligent actors (the "rational actor" only exists in first year economics textbooks), so it is a powerful tool to describe the what and why of things. Even politics is influenced by economics, since politicians and their favorites and minions can allocate resources for their benefit (however defined). Vote buying with outlandish promises is a fairly obvious example right now, but leaving an offshore tax haven open when tightening up the rules on tax havens when a shipping company owned by a Finance Minister just happens to be based there is another example. The RCMP investigation (perhaps joined by the US SEC, due to cross border trading) into leaks from the government prior to the "Income Trusts" tax announcement is yet another.

 

[UberCree]

Dump the system and reinstitute Equality at Law, and in a generation this will be a bad memory, and people with aborigional heritage will stand side by side with the rest of us as Canadians.

I think you would have a hard time finding ANY Native people that would disagree with the above statement.  The problem is how do you do it?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What I would REALLY like to know is how we as a species have gone from "survival of the fittest" to "the fittest must support the weakest".  Frankly, when ANYTHING, wether it be a society, an ideology, a religion, a technology, or an individual, has reached the end of it's usefulnes....LET IT DIE.  Why the hell do we insist on trying to prop up failiures?  Who decided that it's "morally neccesary" to support things which cannot exist on their own?  And how in the hell are we supposed to improve when so many insist on regressing?

I suspect a number of you concussed yourselves with a sharp knee to the jaw after reading that.

I've never heard or read a coherent explanation of "social darwinism" from anyone who was quick to level the accusation.  Biological darwinism is natural selection of species.  Fitter species tend to displace weaker species.  If the latter can't find new ecological niches, they die off.  If there is to be a social counterpart, it would have to apply to societies or cultures.  At no point would it be sensible to discuss the merits of individuals or small groups in such a context.  If anyone wishes to disprove that stronger cultures and societies - militarily, economically, morally - tend to displace weaker ones, I'm waiting to hear a theory which accounts for the historical evidence.  Note this is a historical question, not a moral one.

The moral question hinges on the distinction between commission and omission.  A liberal view of morality can be divided into things you must not do, and things you should do.  I conceive of no things you must do, because that is inconsistent with the principle of liberty.  (Offer a counterexample if you have one.)

If you do that which you must not, you decrease the good.  If you avoid that which you must avoid, you are neutral.  If you pass up an opportunity to do that which you should, you are neutral.  If you do that which you should, you increase the good.

There is a word which describes that last statement: charity.  Charity is freely given of one's own resources.  Charity is not the same as conscription.  Conscription is to take from another's resources.

The conscriptionist is at best morally value-neutral: he does one thing he should not (takes from another) and does one thing he should (gives to another in need).  The problem with reinforcing failure is that the cost of the deduction - from where the resources were taken - is rarely accounted.  Nor, in practice, is much effort given to ensuring the conscripted resources are well-used.  Value neutrality is the best case.  Less than that maximum will be obtained because the conscriptionist can't feasibly expect to conscript from those who can best afford the loss or give most efficiently to those in the most need; also, the conscriptionist tends to prolong bad situations.  This means on average the conscriptionist produces a net decline in the overall good.  The commonplace example is the person who throws money at a problem without ever really addressing the cause.  Does that example seem familiar?

Conversely, success compounds, like interest.  My view is that we have some good precedents for what works and what does not, and we should wean people away from our failures instead of supporting them indefinitely and poorly.  As a general principle, social welfare should be comfortable enough to survive and uncomfortable enough to make one strive for something better.

The problem with institutionalized conscription (eg. socialism) is that it divorces people from responsibility.  Collectively we have developed an attitude that "it's government's job to take care of X", without acknowledging that government often does a piss-poor job.  It is simultaneously government's fault that aboriginals in Canada are in such a plight, and government's responsibility to correct that plight without offending the status quo.

As a postscript, I see a general irony in the belief that while the affluent are not wise enough to be trusted to dispose of the full measure of their income, the recipients of taxpayer largesse are somehow sufficiently wise to do so with minimal supervision and controls.

 

[UberCree]

The conscriptionist is at best morally value-neutral: he does one thing he should not (takes from another) and does one thing he should (gives to another in need).  The problem with reinforcing failure is that the cost of the deduction - from where the resources were taken - is rarely accounted.  Nor, in practice, is much effort given to ensuring the conscripted resources are well-used.  Value neutrality is the best case.  Less than that maximum will be obtained because the conscriptionist can't feasibly expect to conscript from those who can best afford the loss or give most efficiently to those in the most need; also, the conscriptionist tends to prolong bad situations.  This means on average the conscriptionist produces a net decline in the overall good.  The commonplace example is the person who throws money at a problem without ever really addressing the cause.  Does that example seem familiar?

Very familiar.  One could argue that the whole treaty process was an act of charity from native to settler and Canada is mispending the wealth they received in the handover!  I say give it back to us to spend or use as we see fit!  HAHA ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Very familiar.  One could argue that the whole treaty process was an act of charity from native to settler and Canada is mispending the wealth they received in the handover!  I say give it back to us to spend or use as we see fit!  HAHA ;D

You might have a problem getting repatriations from the "Sun King"; New France hasn't been a going concern since the 1700's. This sort of thinking is almost as bad as some of the stuff I was subjected to in Cyprus and Bosnia; events were being driven as if the Ottoman Empire had "just" driven the Venitians from Nicosia, or the battle of Kosovo Polje had ended yesterday, not in 1389.

England could disavow their role as well, the Hanover Dynasty is long gone and the House of Windsor are now the reigning monarchs. Instead of dwelling on a past that can't be changed, lets set the clock to today and find our way out.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>One could argue that the whole treaty process was an act of charity from native to settler

I doubt it very much.  The treaty process was at its best an effort to secure peaceful mobility, settlement, and trade rights within lands already occupied, and at its worst a layer of whitewash over a swindle.  I also doubt that prior to the mid-eighteenth century the Europeans envisioned that their trading colonies would soon grow to dwarf in numbers - and more importantly economic, technological, and military power - the inhabitants of North America.

The problem with treaties is that they were intended to secure a way of life under the assumptions the people would continue to desire that way of life indefinitely and that there were enough resources to accommodate the ambition of the Europeans and the needs of the people.

People born in Canada don't have a choice about that.  Either we all have equal protection and benefit of the law, or we don't.  More importantly, if we wish to perpetuate cultural and political divisions then at least some of the people must be forced to do so against their will.  Otherwise, distinctions of inheritance and the rights and powers and privileges attendant thereto are going to be meaningless in a very few more generations.

 

[Kirkhill]

Are you saying the answer to every challenging social problem lies in business or economics?

In that vein.... Economists always argue for lowering taxes, as they claim it increases productivity, buying, growth, encourages business, improves personal health etc. right?  Then wouldn't having the lowest socioeconomic group in Canada pay no taxes be beneficial economically to them and Canada?  Irregardless of treaties or constitutional rights or supreme court decisions, economically speaking wouldn't you want to have people that are substancially poorer pay no taxes to 'stimulate' prosperity?
Or does that only work for rich people and corporations?

As I remember Adam Smith he didn't argue for eliminating taxes, or for that matter patronage.  IIRC he argued that one of the tools necessary for an effective government was the ability to be seen to be useful.  It needed a carrot as well as a stick otherwise it was invisible when not using the stick and deplored when using the stick.  This was not inclined to make anybody happy with government which was a necessity to supply order in a chaotic, Hobbesian world.

The point is that balance, compromise, moderation is required.  On charitable grounds patronage that is derived from collected taxes needs to be impartially apportioned according to rules that the community accepts just as justice needs to be similarly apportioned.  The problem arises when the balance is not in accord with community wishes - and right now it seems that a large number of members of the community feel that the scales need to be rebalanced.

And just a point on the concept of citizen plus - I was born in Scotland of a Scottish mother.  I am proud to be a Scot.  My father was English and I lived in England for most of my life before emigrating.  I am equally proud to be a Brit.  I never saw any contradiction inherent there.  Likewise, I have become a Canadian Citizen (over 30 years ago) and am proud to be a Canadian.  I still don't see any contradictions.

Any individual has many identities whether it be blood, residence, religion, politics or associations.  The individual chooses how they see themselves and that usually is a little bit of this and that.

I don't see any problem with somebody identifying themselves as a Gay-Socialist-Ojibway-Pentecostal-Canadian-Patricia.  They will have to decide where they fit on any given issue.

 

[UberCree]

Very familiar.  One could argue that the whole treaty process was an act of charity from native to settler and Canada is mispending the wealth they received in the handover!  I say give it back to us to spend or use as we see fit!  HAHA ;D

Jeepers I was joking!  I thought the " ;D HAHA" would make that apparent.  Guess not.  You guys are a sensitive lot.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I understood you were being facetious.  The problem is that there is a faction - some members well-meaning, some self-serving - in Canada which wants to sustain the idea that natives should be wards of the state in perpetuity.  My main point is that the treaty process was developed at a certain point in time to serve the needs of that time.  I believe that time has passed.

 

[TCBF]

So Cartier or some other now-dead guy  sails into the Baie de Chaleur way back when, and it is summer, about maybe 40 C, and the heat is killing them.  So they come back on another summer, end up as far upstream as they can get, and decide to stay.

"Say", say the Indians, "Don't you guys think you should be getting ready for winter?"

"Winter?" they asked "The summers here are as hot or hotter than the summers in France, so the winters must be hotter too, right?"

Wrong.  Montreal and area experiences an 80 C change some years, +40 summer to -40 winter.  The early europeans all reacted the same way to the Canadian climate - they died.  The ones who survived did so only with the help of the Indians. 

And it's been hugs and kisses all around since.

;D

Tom

 

[UberCree]

I understood you were being facetious.  The problem is that there is a faction - some members well-meaning, some self-serving - in Canada which wants to sustain the idea that natives should be wards of the state in perpetuity.  My main point is that the treaty process was developed at a certain point in time to serve the needs of that time.  I believe that time has passed.

The problem is the Indian Act.  Every Aboriginal hates it, yet depends on it.  It encourages paternalism and rewards dysfunctional behaviour and corruption, yet it defines who Indian people are. 
In general I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you and others are saying, yet I am instinctively defensive.  My one observation would be this.  People on the 'right' (to use a generalization) are very often correct and have opinions based upon reality... yet their opinions are often tainted by simply not caring about the weak, underprivaledged, marginalized, unemployed, etc. etc.  The survival of the fittest as mentioned previously.
The 'left' on the other hand I find are often way off target, yet they are often acting out of compassion and caring for those people that the right would deem as unvaluable to the economic efficiency of Canada. 
Every single one of us will become a burden to society at one point or another in our lifetimes.  Whether it is from old age, being hospitalized, unemployed, injured, whatever.  I cannot in good conscience give up my compassion for those in that state... even though economically or effieciency wise I may be wrong.

 

[48Highlander]

So it's better to implement unrealistic policies that are based on misguided compassion and will result in MORE harm to individuals and society......than it is to implement an evil Capitalist policy that will actually make things better for people, but is based on the desire to make everyone as much profit as possible?

Do you have any idea how many millions of people have died thanks to that sort of thinking?

 

[TCBF]

"In general I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you and others are saying, yet I am instinctively defensive.  My one observation would be this.  People on the 'right' (to use a generalization) are very often correct and have opinions based upon reality... yet their opinions are often tainted by simply not caring about the weak, underprivaledged, marginalized, unemployed, etc. etc.  The survival of the fittest as mentioned previously.
The 'left' on the other hand I find are often way off target, yet they are often acting out of compassion and caring for those people that the right would deem as unvaluable to the economic efficiency of Canada. 
Every single one of us will become a burden to society at one point or another in our lifetimes.  Whether it is from old age, being hospitalized, unemployed, injured, whatever.  I cannot in good conscience give up my compassion for those in that state... even though economically or effieciency wise I may be wrong."

- Very well done. Pretty much sums up the politics of the Western World in a nutshell.

"So it's better to implement unrealistic policies that are based on misguided compassion and will result in MORE harm to individuals and society......than it is to implement an evil Capitalist policy that will actually make things better for people, but is based on the desire to make everyone as much profit as possible?"

- Pretty much sums up the all to often unfortunate results of such politics.

"Do you have any idea how many millions of people have died thanks to that sort of thinking?"

- Pretty much sums up the type of question that steers voters into voting for more of it:  They do not like their previous votes being portrayed as accessories to bureaucratic mass murder.  Look at the gun registry:  Try telling a feminist that the gun registry $2,000,000,000 could have saved women's lives had it been spent on breast cancer, and she will turn off and leave. Why?  Because you have just portrayed her as an accessory to institutionalized manslaughter, and she cannot accept that. 

You (We) have to find another way to get the point across.  Guilt does not work - it drives voters away.

Tom

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The problem is the Indian Act.  ... it defines who Indian people are.

That's the root of the problem - that we should believe we can "define" people differently in Canada, or that any of us should have different rights by virtue of the accident of our ancestry or any other way by which we came to be citizens of the nation.  My political belief is that we should all be truly equal under one law, and at the same time unfettered by government strictures or anyone else's arbitrary (ie. unreasoned) moralism encoded in legislation.  The first part might encourage some to label me "assimilationist", but if the second part is considered it should be clear that the field is wide open for individual choices, including culture and lifestyle, subject only to respect for the "commons" (ie. we can't all pack up and go work trap lines in the bush, because the land couldn't sustain it).

>People on the 'right' (to use a generalization) ... are often tainted by simply not caring about the weak, underprivaledged, marginalized, unemployed, etc. etc.  The survival of the fittest as mentioned previously.

Sometimes it seems that way, and there are certainly a few who write, speak, and behave as if those are their beliefs.  What I have observed is that the more resources we divert to treat the symptoms of a few of the unfortunate, the longer it takes to treat the causes.  People on the left are preoccupied by the gap between the fortunate and the unfortunate.  I am merely preoccupied with ensuring absolute gains in the shortest possible time - not just for Canadians, but for people in general.  In short we are all compassionate, but I entertain the conceit - perhaps mistakenly - that I try to be compassionate universally.  If all a welfare program can do is perpetuate a sub-standard existence, it's not worth retaining an instant longer.

 

[UberCree]

This thread is worthy of reviving for this:

Quotes from a CBC.ca (Jan 25 2006) piece:

Ovide Mercredi, ex-Assembly of First Nations national chief, welcomes the Conservative minority government.

"The last time the Conservatives were in power, that is when we made advances on the inherent right of our people to govern themselves, and that's the same time they were looking at the constitutional recognition of our people's treaty and aboriginal rights."

"This is the same process that the Liberals shut down, so I don't think the Liberals are leaders when it comes to enlightened aboriginal policy."

"I don't have the same religious reverence for the Liberal party that some aboriginal leaders have because the Liberal party has not delivered on their promises to the aboriginal community."

Mercredi wants Jim Prentice as Indian Affairs Minister.

 

[a_majoor]

This thread is worthy of reviving for this:

Quotes from a CBC.ca (Jan 25 2006) piece:

Ovide Mercredi, ex-Assembly of First Nations national chief, welcomes the Conservative minority government.

"The last time the Conservatives were in power, that is when we made advances on the inherent right of our people to govern themselves, and that's the same time they were looking at the constitutional recognition of our people's treaty and aboriginal rights."

Somehow I don't think what Mr Mercredi is talking about is quite the same as what some of us are talking about. If Mr Mercredi is speaking of the "fourth level" of government, then my answer is "forget it". If he means ending the Indian Act and declaring all reservations to be counties and municipalities (according to the definitions of the various provinces and territories they are located in), subect to the same laws and regulations that all other counties and municipalities are subject to, then lets stop wasting time and get going!