Pay up or leave

[tango]

Indeed. But once again...no matter what Amherst thought...that's not how variola spread across the Americas. Also overlooked is that he'd be infecting Europeans as well as Native Indians. It was particularly vicious in that it did hang around, slowly incubating for nearly two weeks, allowing the victim to travel some distance before falling over dead (or recovering).

It's not about Amherst: That was 200 years after the conquest of America, when 95% of the native population was exterminated (1500-1600).

Forget euro history ... ask Indigenous elders.

It wasn't just smallpox, but whatever plagues were raging in Europe, and lots of 'surplus' blankets. The missionaries and militia were just delighted to deliver them to native communities, then steal their land as they died.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[bush_cheney2004]

"The pot calling the kettle black"

But never, "The pot calling the kettle white" ??

[benny]

steal their land as they died.

Stealing is justifiable when sharing is not an option.

[tango]

Stealing is justifiable when sharing is not an option.

Is that benny-law?

[benny]

Is that benny-law?

natural law

[Riverwind]

Is that benny-law?

All taxation is a form of theft unless it is directly connected to goods/services received (i.e. user fees). So Benny is right to say that stealing is justified if it benefits society as a whole. Just like we saw killing is wrong unless it is justified by something like self defence.

[benny]

All taxation is a form of theft unless it is directly connected to goods/services received (i.e. user fees).

The goods/services received from the land are gifts from nature, they can be taxed or taken on the basis that gifts are undeserved.

Edited August 19, 2009 by benny

[M.Dancer]

All taxation is a form of theft unless it is directly connected to goods/services received (i.e. user fees). So Benny is right to say that stealing is justified if it benefits society as a whole. Just like we saw killing is wrong unless it is justified by something like self defence.

Not quite...

Just like killing is justified if it is backed by court and law, taxation is justified if it is backed by an act of parliament.

[Riverwind]

The goods/services received from the land are gifts from nature, they can be taxed or taken on the basis that gifts are undeserved.

Nature provides nothing that can be used without the expenditure of labour. If someone takes a rock and carves it into an axe then it is labour that created the value - not the fact that nature provided the rock. The only time nature's 'gifts' comes into the question is when many people are willing/able to invest the labour into the same limited resource. At that point we need a mechanism to decide who has the right to use that resource. One mechanism presumes that the collective owns the resource and the higher bidder must pay for the right to use it.

[Riverwind]

Just like killing is justified if it is backed by court and law, taxation is justified if it is backed by an act of parliament.

Parliment cerates the rules for justified killing (e.g. is a deady burglar booby trap in a home justfied or not?). The courts also can rule specific taxes unconstitutional even if authorized by parliment.

[benny]

Not quite...

Just like killing is justified if it is backed by court and law, taxation is justified if it is backed by an act of parliament.

Courts, laws and parliaments can only give a false sense of security and false legitimacy to societies.

[tango]

Courts, laws and parliaments can only give a false sense of security and false legitimacy to societies.

benny, that's not the thread topic. you are derailing. stop please.

[benny]

Nature provides nothing that can be used without the expenditure of labour.

Our stomachs are naturally made to digest fruits with very little unpleasant labour.

[benny]

benny, that's not the thread topic. you are derailing. stop please.

My post is related to lands claims.

[M.Dancer]

Parliment cerates the rules for justified killing (e.g. is a deady burglar booby trap in a home justfied or not?).

Parliament (or any legilsative body) can create the rules for an execution.

The courts also can rule specific taxes unconstitutional even if authorized by parliment.

When has a court ruled that a taxation bill (or law) is unconstitutional?

[tango]

My post is related to lands claims.

Then please clarify how.

[benny]

Parliament (or any legilsative body) can create the rules for an execution.

When has a court ruled that a taxation bill (or law) is unconstitutional?

The relation between Aboriginals and Europeans was and still is not so much a domestic issue but an international one.

[Riverwind]

When has a court ruled that a taxation bill (or law) is unconstitutional?

It is a US example but demonstrates my point:

http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story_ma...storyname=37376

[DogOnPorch]

It's not about Amherst: That was 200 years after the conquest of America, when 95% of the native population was exterminated (1500-1600).

Forget euro history ... ask Indigenous elders.

It wasn't just smallpox, but whatever plagues were raging in Europe, and lots of 'surplus' blankets. The missionaries and militia were just delighted to deliver them to native communities, then steal their land as they died.

Once again...when was Oregon 'conquered'? You seem to have a very faulty view of history...Gaza included...now North America.

It was indeed smallpox/variola that killed the vast majority of people. Blankets make a poor if not unviable vector for variola as explained.

Re: asking indigenous elders: were they alive in 1700? Nope.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Once again...when was Oregon 'conquered'? You seem to have a very faulty view of history...Gaza included...now North America.

It was indeed smallpox/variola that killed the vast majority of people. Blankets make a poor if not unviable vector for variola as explained.

Re: asking indigenous elders: were they alive in 1700? Nope.

So neither are the people who write down what happened from the european point of veiw and since it was people who wrote it down it is subject to the same criticism as a 300 year old vocal record.

[M.Dancer]

So neither are the people who write down what happened from the european point of veiw and since it was people who wrote it down it is subject to the same criticism as a 300 year old vocal record.

The written word is not subject to the "broken telephone" nor is it conviently forgotten.

Oral histories aren't worth the paper they are written on,

[Guest TrueMetis]

The written word is not subject to the "broken telephone" nor is it conviently forgotten.

Oral histories aren't worth the paper they are written on,

And something written by a biased source isn't worth anything either.

[tango]

The written word is not subject to the "broken telephone" nor is it conviently forgotten.

Oral histories aren't worth the paper they are written on,

Written words are often convenient fictions.

[tango]

Once again...when was Oregon 'conquered'? You seem to have a very faulty view of history...Gaza included...now North America.

It was indeed smallpox/variola that killed the vast majority of people. Blankets make a poor if not unviable vector for variola as explained.

Re: asking indigenous elders: were they alive in 1700? Nope.

ONCE AGAIN ... I am referring to the 1500's, NOT the 1700's.

It was in the 1500's that the Indigenous population was decimated, before the settlers came, and in preparation for them.

I never suggested smallpox: I suggested whatever plagues were raging in Europe at that time, creating all those surplus (infected) blankets.

No doubt some diseases worked better than others by this method.

Edited August 19, 2009 by tango

[Riverwind]

And something written by a biased source isn't worth anything either.

All sources are biased. The difference is the written word only has the biases of the original other and has not been further modified by the biases of each person repeating the story.