Constitutional Monarchy and the "Nation to Nation" Relationshi

[-1=e^ipi]

I'll continue from my last post.

In addition to the very premise of a racial group of people owning land where their ancestors are from being flawed, from the statement:

"Natives used to own North America because that is where their ancestors are from. The British Crown made treaties with representatives of the native people to obtain the land now known as Canada. Because the British Crown had the authority to make laws for all British subjects and hence all Canadian citizens, even centuries after the unelected monarchs that made these laws have died, this somehow means that Canadian citizens today, be they native or non native, must support racist policies that would otherwise go against our modern values, even if it results in a lack of economic prosperity for native people on reserves due to a lack of individual property rights."

There are a few other unproven premises:

* The British Crown had the authority to make treaties with natives in the first place on behalf of all British subjects and hence all future Canadians

This is quite flawed.

For one, the British monarchs are completely unelected and gained their position not through merit but by birth-right. So how can these British monarchs be considered to represent the will of the British people? Certainly there were enough people in North America who disagreed with their monarch-representatives to start rebellions when the treaties were being signed (American revolution, Upper-Canada rebellion, etc.).

And even if the British monarchs could be considered legitimate representatives of the British people, how does that give them authority to make laws (that cannot be changed as some posters here argue) that affect people hundreds of years in the future, when the individuals in the future never agreed to be represented by this monarch since they weren't even born at the time.

Even if one were to say that the British monarchs were legitimate representatives of the British people & that they had the authority to make laws to affect people hundreds of years in the future, that does not necessarily mean that they are allowed to implement laws that are inherently racist and/or are against human rights or basic principles of liberal democracies. There are certain principles of liberal democracies and/or human rights (freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of press, equality under the law, etc.) which should not be violated regardless of who the representative of the people is (be they elected or unelected).

* The representatives of the natives were legitimate representatives of the native people

Again, similar to the issue of the British crown not being a legitimate representative of the native people, how can we say that the natives that signed the treaties were legitimate representatives of the native people? Were these chiefs elected? no. Did the entire tribe agree with the chief signing a treaty on their behalf? unlikely.

But really my main point is that one cannot morally derive property rights. Because if you go back far enough, all property rights descend from property rights that were established by military force.

Why does the United States of America have authority over the land and people inside the United States? Because the founding fathers of the american revolution established their authority by military force.

Why does the Republic of France have authority over the land and people inside France? Because the french revolutionaries revolted and took that authority by force from the monarchists.
Why does Canada have authority over the lands and people inside Canada? Because Britain claimed these lands & gave those lands to Canada. Britain's legitimacy descends back to the Norman evasion of England in 1066.
And why, for example, can a citizen in the United States own their home? Because the United States says that this citizen owns the home (and the United State's legitimacy descends again from the american revolution).

So you cannot morally derive property rights. But that doesn't mean that property rights should not exist. Indeed, property rights are very useful because the establishment of individual property rights helps to incentivise people to participate in wealth creating activities (If one can own a patent, one is more likely to develop new technology. If one can own a farm, one is more likely to work hard to grow food on the farm without fear of someone stealing their hard work.).

In the case of native reserves, the collectivist property rights clearly are unhelpful to people on reserve (much like how communism doesn't work) because it disincentivises individuals to improve the land and it also means that individuals cannot use their land as leverage to obtain loans to finance development. Furthermore, the whole idea of determining property rights based on someone's race and having different laws for different races clearly violates the principle of equality under the law.

So all you pro-status-quo people can keep referencing the UN Charter of Rights of Indigenous people, the proclamation of 1763, or the Indian Act as much as you want and make claims that we can never change things, but it will not make for a convincing argument.

Edited February 4, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

That is why the ultimate question is not "is it legal?" but "is it right?"

Yes, this is the only question that should matter.

I'll leave you to do your own research, if you are interested in learning. Of course, if you don't accept 'law', then you won't really be interested.

So you claim that 'aboriginal rights' exist but you cannot define them? How helpful... Could you please reanswer my request?

Could you please define what these rights are and justify why they exist and are valid/moral? And I would prefer you don't just copy-paste stuff from the racist 'united nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples'.

Also explain how you can implement these rights when dealing with people of mixed race.

And by your last comment, are you admitting that you cannot morally justify these 'rights'?

[-1=e^ipi]

I agree that laws sometimes need to be changed.

In the case of treaties, this can only happen with the consent of all parties: ie, Canada/the Crown cannot unilaterally change or dispose of the treaties.

Nonsense.

Laws only have value if people follow them.

And much like a marriage, if one party wants a divorce, then the marriage is over even if the other party wants to continue the marriage.

Secondly, greater effort should be taken to try to come up with a new framework for relations between Canadians and natives through negotiation between the involved parties, one that is based on ideas suitable for the modern world, and preferably one that realizes that all peoples within the geographic borders of Canada are one nation and gets rid of racial discrimination.

Yes, too many people are satisfied with the status quo and resist change to make society better off. The best solution is to negotiate a new framework with all existing parties that ends in a situation where there are no more communal property rights and all Canadians are considered equal under the law regardless of ethnic origin.

Modern treaties are being negotiated, but Aboriginal rights can only be dissolved with consent of both parties. Not likely.

Trudeau tried to do it unilaterally and failed.

Trudeau only failed due to the lack of political support from Canadians didn't try in the end.

Harper lost his bid for a seat on the UN Security Council due to his initial failure to sign the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Lol, really? You blame the failure to sign the UN decalration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the lack of a seat on the UN council?

You know which four countries voted against the declaration of rights of indigenous peoples in the UN? Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States? Do you know why these 4 countries voted against the declaration? Because it is a racist document that goes against the idea of equality under the law and violates things like the American Bill of Rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All four countries have now changed their position to 'supporting the law in spirit but it is not legally binding' for political reasons however.

Canada lost the UN seat for a few reasons. 1. Germany decided to enter the race so it because a 3 way race for 2 positions between Canada, Germany and Portugal. 2. Europe wanted more representatives so they all voted for European countries. 3. Canada had strong support for Isreal so the Muslim block (largest voting block in the UN general assembly) voted against Canada. 4. Obama and the Americans didn't actively support Canada's bid like the Americans usually do.

Really the whole concept of 1 country = 1 vote at the UN is retarded. You can keep referencing the UN as much as you like but I do not acknowledge the organization as some indisputable determiner of rights.

[-1=e^ipi]

No strawman involved. Just pointed out the fallacy in your argument.

Strawmaning someone's position now counts as 'pointing out the fallacies' now?

With that being said, I am not in favor of the Indian Act or reserve system. If you would have read my first post responding to yours you would easily see that. Like I said, I have no problems with the treaties they signed. The treaties were intended to allow development in a safe manner. Moreso, I believe the intent of the British signing those treaties was for it to create a system of assmiliation over a while. I don't believe they ever thought we would still have this today. So when I say we should respect the treaties, I mean to the word of the treaties. They get $5 per year. They can have their reserve land. They can even hunt on our land. But ultimately they have no other rights to this land and can't dictate what we do with it. If these treaties were ACTUALLY held up then the natives would have abandoned them long ago. Instead we have some vauge interpretation that allows this to perpetuate.

I understand you position. But I still disagree with how much legitimacy you give the treaties. I question the legitimacy of the treaties in the first place to make various laws today (even if they are being misinterpreted) due to a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I would advocate a position where you throw them completely out the window (that would obviously cause conflicts, riots, etc.). But I do not thing it is helpful to the discussion of native issues for people to give the treaties more legitimacy than they deserve.

Actually no. The punishment for these laws have changed however it has always been against the law to steal or murder. Nothing changed there.

Even this is untrue. There have been plenty of exceptions to the rules of laws being against stealing or murder. Honor killings, killing of apostates in an Islamic state, killing of wives that have been unfaithful are examples of exceptions to laws against murder that have occurred in human history. As for not stealing, have you ever heard of expropriation? There are plenty of examples (especially after socialist revolutions) of the state just stealing property from private individuals.

No. I was showing you that our CURRENT system is still based on these past systems. Unlike you I am focused on the individual laws and not the time they were drafted or the moral landscape at the time. You seem to dismiss the people that drafted these laws simply because they live in a time where women or natives couldn't vote or where homosexuality was illegal.

Again with the strawman. I have never claimed that the legitimacy of a law depends on the moral landscape of a society under which the laws were drafted.

Oh...and no....I don't gather it from holy books or consitution. I am very aware that laws can be changed and should be reviewed constantly to ensure that we are doing things morally. However avoiding the fact that our current consitution is based on such past immoral representations is purely foolish.

There is a difference between not ignoring the past laws and giving those past laws absolute legitimacy.

You are the one dismissing laws because of their age. Remember...the 250 year thing! I simply stated that we still have some laws from that time showing that age is NOT an issue.

I am not dismissing it. I just don't give it indisputable authority. You seem to take a false dichotomy position that either you dismiss a law or it has 100% legitimacy and authority.

[-1=e^ipi]

First....show me where I said they should be dealt with as a sovereign nation. Please I beg you to show me this. Second....in your quote you admit that I never thought them to be sovereign nations.....so why in your wildest dreams would you think that I would think they should be treated as sovereign nations?????

Your comment was "They consider themselves sovereign nations who should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis."

The comment is ambiguous and can either be interpreted that you think they should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis, or that the AFN thinks that it should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis.

So perhaps I misinterpreted you?

Sorry drama queen....didn't mean to be a bother!!!

Again...read my comments about treaties and you'll know why I say this.

Want to actually respond to my post that question the legitimacy of the idea that First Nations owned the land in the first place?

But the existence of Aboriginal rights is not going to change except by consent of each Indigenous Nation.

Again define these rights and morally justify them please.

[jacee]

Again define these rights and morally justify them please.

Again look it up yourself. It`s a matter of law.

[Bonam]

Again look it up yourself. It`s a matter of law.

He asked you to justify them morally, not legally. Legality is not the same as morality. Laws can be immoral. Comprehend?

[Accountability Now]

Strawmaning someone's position now counts as 'pointing out the fallacies' now?

No. Let me show you from this site (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. • Person A has position X.
   • Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
   • Person B attacks position Y.
   • Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You provided position X stating that "I'll just claim that I'm really skeptical that those that made the treaties had the authority to make racist laws that affect people today." Your position from the start has been that they did not have the authority to make these laws.

I responded by saying "They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority". I wasn't even offering a position Y and any rebuttal was anything but exaggeration or distortion.

You then provided your own distorted Position Y as to why Position X is correct in saying that because other laws considered immoral today were crafted during the same time as the treaties, then that means these people didn't have the authority to make these treaties as shown by "Did native people have the vote during this time? no. Did women have the vote for the majority of this time period? no. Was homosexuality a crime during this period? yes. Where these treaties also made in the names of unelected foreign monarchs? yes. Do many of these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763? yes."

I then pointed out the fallacy of Position Y by showing you that not all laws created by these 'immoral' people were in themselves immoral just because you pointed out a few immoral laws that existed at the time. Its not an all or none thing....as such their authority can not be based on a changing moral landscape.

I also went further to directly refute your opening Position X by showing that the current law has nothing to do with the past authority. If a law still stands today then it still has authority until the day it is changed. As such I don't question their authority to make the laws since our current lawmakers continue to uphold the law. I'm fine with questioning the law itself but saying they didn't have the authority is flat out ridiculous.

You even came full circle on this one by stating "The reason racist laws from this time period are immoral is because they are racist, not because the time period they are from is immoral." I agree with what you say HERE but I'm not sure why all the verbal diarrhea over the other immoral laws and the authority of the people at the time. I guess your strawman got away from you....hey?

I understand you position. But I still disagree with how much legitimacy you give the treaties. I question the legitimacy of the treaties in the first place to make various laws today (even if they are being misinterpreted) due to a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I would advocate a position where you throw them completely out the window (that would obviously cause conflicts, riots, etc.). But I do not thing it is helpful to the discussion of native issues for people to give the treaties more legitimacy than they deserve.

I'm giving the bare minimum of legitamacy. I admit that our forefathers signed this deal and that we should honor it to the word the deal says. Have you read the treaties? They are fairly clear on the natives ceding and surrendering all rights to the lands and outlining what is to be done. Again...I believe they were deisigned to do so because the Brits thought the natives would eventually assimilate and these treaties would be gone. My stance is that if the natives want their treaties....then fine....let them have it but to the word they were written. Not some interpretation by some bleeding heart.

Even this is untrue. There have been plenty of exceptions to the rules of laws being against stealing or murder. Honor killings, killing of apostates in an Islamic state, killing of wives that have been unfaithful are examples of exceptions to laws against murder that have occurred in human history. As for not stealing, have you ever heard of expropriation? There are plenty of examples (especially after socialist revolutions) of the state just stealing property from private individuals.

Are you serious? We're talking about Canada and the evolution of laws here and you are now stretching and distorting this to HUMAN history? Wow...now that is a strawman. Lol. Try and keep it on the tracks already!

Again with the strawman. I have never claimed that the legitimacy of a law depends on the moral landscape of a society under which the laws were drafted.

No? If not outright stated, you sure implied it and backed it up over and over again.

Yes during the time period when there was slavery, blasphemy laws, criminalization of homosexuality and women were considered property. Laws made by people who were racist & sexist and didn't want to give native people the vote. The authority of these laws comes from some unelected monarch 250 years ago who got the position not by merit but by birthright. And the reason this monarch had authority over British North America is because the British simply invaded and took over the lands. Meanwhile, some of these laws, whose authority you do not question, contributed to the American revolution, such as the proclamation of 1763. If we consider these laws to have absolute legal authority, then shouldn't that mean we should consider the United States of America to be an illegal entity?

I am not dismissing it. I just don't give it indisputable authority. You seem to take a false dichotomy position that either you dismiss a law or it has 100% legitimacy and authority.

Um...no. I have been very clear that our laws have evolved over time and that we are constantly building off of the foundations of what you called immoral times. Some laws have changed and others have remained. I only used the dichotomy above to show you how ridiculous you were in trying to prove that the treaties were immoral just because they came from a time when other immoral laws were in place.

[Remiel]

One thing that is probably worth pointing out: King George III wanted to be an absolute monarch but he was a constitutional one, particularly at the time the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was made; the Whigs were in control of Parliament. This fact, that the Royal Proclamation was written by constitutionalists, confounds some of the assumptions of both sides in the indigenous vs. non-indigenous debate I think.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Remiel

[Accountability Now]

Your comment was "They consider themselves sovereign nations who should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis."

The comment is ambiguous and can either be interpreted that you think they should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis, or that the AFN thinks that it should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis.

So perhaps I misinterpreted you?

Misinterpret or just couldn't keep up? Go back one step in that exchange and you will see where I said this quote below. Again....reading will help you understand.

I agree with you but you should ask a Native if they are Canadian. Remember....they like to deal with us Nation to Nation.

Want to actually respond to my post that question the legitimacy of the idea that First Nations owned the land in the first place?

This is hilarious. There is no legitimacy because even First Nations didn't believe they 'owned' the land in the first place! It wasn't an issue of ownership it was an issue of territories and who got to use which lands. Europeans were the ones to impose the idea of title to the land which is something that native activists claim was foreign or misunderstood by the First Nations. As such your attack on the legitimacy of First Nations ownership stops right at the beginning.

In my opinion, the native cheifs knew what was happening when signing the treaties. They knew that their rights to the lands were taken in these treaties and they did this willingly as a result of the current situation. Not only did you have the Brits continually expanding from the east but you also had the Yankees coming from the south. Ultimately the natives were used as pawns by British in order to fight off the pending Yankee invasion in 1812. This was a sign for the natives that the 'white' man was not stopping and that the best route for their survival was treaties. This unification happened under British law and ultimately made our country. There were two possible scenarios for the natives... team up with the British and take what they would give them OR die at war. If it wasn't by the hand of the Brits then it would have been the Yanks. Either way....they knew their time was up. Just my opinion of course.

[bush_cheney2004]

....This is hilarious. There is no legitimacy because even First Nations didn't believe they 'owned' the land in the first place!

True...as the very concept of "owning land" would be laughable to most pre-Columbian tribes and cultures. It's like owning the sky or the wind. Natives didn't have torrens title systems for land or even an abstraction like Crown ownership. An Ojibjwe woman once explained to me that land cession terms were not understood in the same way as for "whites". Land was not owned, or bought and sold like used cars.

[-1=e^ipi]

He asked you to justify them morally, not legally. Legality is not the same as morality. Laws can be immoral. Comprehend?

Yes, I do not understand why people cannot comprehend this notion. Legality != Morality.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

I know what a strawman argument is. Now this is why you are committing one:

You provided position X stating that "I'll just claim that I'm really skeptical that those that made the treaties had the authority to make racist laws that affect people today." Your position from the start has been that they did not have the authority to make these laws...

as to why Position X is correct in saying that because other laws considered immoral today were crafted during the same time as the treaties, then that means these people didn't have the authority to make these treaties as shown by "Did native people have the vote during this time? no. Did women have the vote for the majority of this time period? no. Was homosexuality a crime during this period? yes. Where these treaties also made in the names of unelected foreign monarchs? yes. Do many of these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763? yes."

My position isn't that the authority of the people who made the laws is questionable because some of the laws they made are immoral. My position is that the authority of people who made the laws is questionable because of other reasons (not being democratically elected, not earning the position through merit, the questionability that people can have authority make laws the affect unborn people 100's of years in the future, the questionability that anyone has the authority to make racist laws, etc).

You are strawmaning my position because you are misprepresenting my justification for why I have my position.

The reason I stated

"Did native people have the vote during this time? no. Did women have the vote for the majority of this time period? no. Was homosexuality a crime during this period? yes. Where these treaties also made in the names of unelected foreign monarchs? yes. Do many of these treaties depend on the legitamacy of the proclamation of 1763? yes."

was because it was a response to

"They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority"

Because you were implying that the authority of those that made the laws regarding first nations issues should not be questioned because they made other laws that you have no problem with. I provided examples of laws made by the same people that made the laws regarding first nations issues that you would strongly object to so that you would question their authority (which would force a retraction of your statement).

I also went further to directly refute your opening Position X by showing that the current law has nothing to do with the past authority.

Nonsense. The authority of all laws depends of past laws which created the framework for the future laws to be created in the first place. And you can trace that authority all the way back to some armed revolution or someone imposing the original laws by force (American Revolution, French Revolution, Norman Invasion of 1066, etc.). Why does the pacifist constitution of Japan have any authority? Because Japan lost WW2 and the constitution was imposed on them by the United States by force.

If a law still stands today then it still has authority until the day it is changed.

Saudi Arabia has a law that stands today that says that apostates should be beheaded. Do you not question the authority of that law? Perhaps it might be useful to distinguish between moral authority and legal authority?

As such I don't question their authority to make the laws since our current lawmakers continue to uphold the law. I'm fine with questioning the law itself but saying they didn't have the authority is flat out ridiculous.

The only ridiculous position is your position to not question the legal authority of the law. The legal authority of all laws is questionable because all laws descend from authorities that took power by force.

You even came full circle on this one by stating "The reason racist laws from this time period are immoral is because they are racist, not because the time period they are from is immoral." I agree with what you say HERE but I'm not sure why all the verbal diarrhea over the other immoral laws and the authority of the people at the time. I guess your strawman got away from you....hey?

The immorality just means that the laws have no moral authority. The legal authority is questionable because of other reasons (see above).

[-1=e^ipi]

Are you serious? We're talking about Canada and the evolution of laws here and you are now stretching and distorting this to HUMAN history? Wow...now that is a strawman. Lol. Try and keep it on the tracks already!

Your comment does not demerit what I have said. Do you or do you not retract your following claim?:

Actually no. The punishment for these laws have changed however it has always been against the law to steal or murder. Nothing changed there.

Um...no. I have been very clear that our laws have evolved over time and that we are constantly building off of the foundations of what you called immoral times. Some laws have changed and others have remained. I only used the dichotomy above to show you how ridiculous you were in trying to prove that the treaties were immoral just because they came from a time when other immoral laws were in place.

Again with the same strawman argument? See above & stop misrepresenting my position.

One thing that is probably worth pointing out: King George III wanted to be an absolute monarch but he was a constitutional one, particularly at the time the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was made; the Whigs were in control of Parliament. This fact, that the Royal Proclamation was written by constitutionalists, confounds some of the assumptions of both sides in the indigenous vs. non-indigenous debate I think.

That helps the discussion. Thanks.

[TimG]

My position is that the authority of people who made the laws is questionable because of other reasons (not being democratically elected, not earning the position through merit, the questionability that people can have authority make laws the affect unborn people 100's of years in the future, the questionability that anyone has the authority to make racist laws, etc).

The democratically elected representatives had the power to repudiate these laws when the BNA act was signed and when the Constitution Act was passed. As it stands today the democratic majority has the right to repudiate these laws by following the amending formula set out in the 1984 constitution. That is not likely to happen because no one wants the really nasty political fight that would occur if a government tried to make that change. However, circumstances change and that nasty political fight could be preferable to the alternatives in the future.

[Accountability Now]

My position isn't that the authority of the people who made the laws is questionable because some of the laws they made are immoral. My position is that the authority of people who made the laws is questionable because of other reasons (not being democratically elected, not earning the position through merit, the questionability that people can have authority make laws the affect unborn people 100's of years in the future, the questionability that anyone has the authority to make racist laws, etc).

No...your position from the start was this:

I'll just claim that I'm really skeptical that those that made the treaties had the authority to make racist laws that affect people today.

Your justififcation to your position came in two separate ways:

1. Illustrating that these people created and lived in an era with other immoral laws

2. Illustrating these people were not elected and properly entitled based on merit.

When I commented on this you went off on a tangent talking about all the immoral laws and the periods for which these laws played out. So I responded in kind to show you your fallacies in the context of those immoral periods and laws. I even addressed your second justification point by showing that we still have these treaties and laws in place today which have been upheld by our current constitution of 1982 from which elected officials were used. As such your second justification, which you now claim is your main one, is false as well.

Because you were implying that the authority of those that made the laws regarding first nations issues should not be questioned because they made other laws that you have no problem with. I provided examples of laws made by the same people that made the laws regarding first nations issues that you would strongly object to so that you would question their authority (which would force a retraction of your statement).

Is this ANOTHER one of your famous misinterpretations? What I actually said was:

They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority. I just question the current courts interpretation of what both sides intended

I never said that THE LAWS regaring First Nations should not be questioned (but don't let me stop you from making your strawman). I said I don't really question the authority of the people that originally made them. AS IN....its not really that important in the grand scheme of things. We can and should question every law to ensure we continue to make laws that are right based on our current moral standing and knoweldge base. The fact is that these people made such laws that are STILL in power today. As such, you can question their authority as much as you can question the authority of the same law makers today.

Nonsense. The authority of all laws depends of past laws which created the framework for the future laws to be created in the first place. And you can trace that authority all the way back to some armed revolution or someone imposing the original laws by force (American Revolution, French Revolution, Norman Invasion of 1066, etc.). Why does the pacifist constitution of Japan have any authority? Because Japan lost WW2 and the constitution was imposed on them by the United States by force.

Ok...look at your examples....American Revolution (USA), French Revolution (France) Norman Invasion (England), and Japan.

Of those four examples, three of them are free to make whatever changes they want to their consitution with the only exception being Japan. They could even rewrite their constitution if they wanted to. Japan is the only exception and its because of war time measures that may not be as firm as once thought (I don't know this for sure...). I would question if the UN or the US would really be against Japan re-taking control over its own governance at this point.

The other three examples have current election process every number of years where the people elect a group that will carry out laws AS PER the will of the current day people. Take the US for example....one of the ammendments of their constitution is the right to bear arms. We know that this is a highly contentious issue that has a possibility of being altered because the CURRENT day people want it to be so regardless of what was imposed by their forefathers.

As such, the authority of all laws DOES NOT depend of past laws but is built off them and made better. But in no way is it held captive to those past laws so don't confuse it as such.

Saudi Arabia has a law that stands today that says that apostates should be beheaded. Do you not question the authority of that law? Perhaps it might be useful to distinguish between moral authority and legal authority?

As you allude to....I would question the morality of the law but since I don't live in Saudi Arabia, I cannot question the law itself. Of course, I find it funny that this law has stood for so long and their own people don't question it. Perhaps the majority of the people are in agreement with this law regardless of how a few westerners like you and I would feel. If it was so bad and so immoral then one would expect the people to rise up. Of course, that notion may again be only applicable to westerner like us.

The only ridiculous position is your position to not question the legal authority of the law. The legal authority of all laws is questionable because all laws descend from authorities that took power by force.

And as shown above, we have the CURRENT power to change those laws making their past authority trivial which is why again I don't question their authority.

[Accountability Now]

Your comment does not demerit what I have said. Do you or do you not retract your following claim?:

Actually no. The punishment for these laws have changed however it has always been against the law to steal or murder. Nothing changed there.

Sure it does. We've been talking about laws and lawmakers in Canada and you deviate over to human rights issues around the world. Apples to oranges or as you like to say...strawman!

As for my claim...it was against the law back then to steal or to murder just the same as it is now. So no retraction needed.

[-1=e^ipi]

Misinterpret or just couldn't keep up? Go back one step in that exchange and you will see where I said this quote below. Again....reading will help you understand.

Sigh, your statement: "I agree with you but you should ask a Native if they are Canadian. Remember....they like to deal with us Nation to Nation." doesn't magically make your other statement : "They consider themselves sovereign nations who should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis." not ambiguous. If you want to not be misinterpreted, do not use ambiguous statements.

This is hilarious. There is no legitimacy because even First Nations didn't believe they 'owned' the land in the first place!

So you disagree with the premise that a group of people can own territory based on where their ancestors are from?

They knew that their rights to the lands were taken in these treaties and they did this willingly as a result of the current situation.

So now you claim that the Natives had rights to the lands, but your previous statement was that they did not own the land. Could you please tell me what these 'rights to the lands' are and how they are morally justified?

[-1=e^ipi]

-1=e^ipi, on 04 Feb 2014 - 3:42 PM, said:

My position isn't that the authority of the people who made the laws is questionable because some of the laws they made are immoral. My position is that the authority of people who made the laws is questionable because of other reasons (not being democratically elected, not earning the position through merit, the questionability that people can have authority make laws the affect unborn people 100's of years in the future, the questionability that anyone has the authority to make racist laws, etc).

No...your position from the start was this:

-1=e^ipi, on 31 Jan 2014 - 6:04 PM, said:

I'll just claim that I'm really skeptical that those that made the treaties had the authority to make racist laws that affect people today.

Wow... clearly you do not comprehend the difference between a claim and a position. A position can consist of a baseless claim, or it can also be a claim plus justification. The reason you strawman my position is not because you misrepresent my claim, but because you misrepresent the justification I use for that claim.

When I commented on this you went off on a tangent talking about all the immoral laws and the periods for which these laws played out. So I responded in kind to show you your fallacies in the context of those immoral periods and laws. I even addressed your second justification point by showing that we still have these treaties and laws in place today which have been upheld by our current constitution of 1982 from which elected officials were used. As such your second justification, which you now claim is your main one, is false as well.

The fact that we still have laws and treaties in place today today doesn't demerit the legal legitimacy argument against the original authorities than created the laws since the legal legitimacy of those elected officials descends from the same original authority.

Maybe I'll try to make this clearer for you. No person, state, country or organization has (nor ever will have) absolute legal authority to make laws.

Why you ask? Because the legal authority of those laws depend on the legal authority of the legal framework in which they are created (be it the Canadian parliamentary system, the American republican system, etc.). And the legal authority of the legal framework either descends from a pre-existing framework (Canadian legal framework was created from the British legal framework), in which case you can keep going back until you reach the original legal framework, or the legal framework was imposed by force (American revolution, French revolution, Chinese civil war, etc.). And who gave the people who imposed the initial legal framework the authority to do so? God? No. No one did, the people who won the military conflicted imposed their will by force.

So you and Jacee can continue with your bullshit claims about how the legal authority of the racist laws shouldn't be questioned, or whatever. But it won't make for a convincing argument if I'm skeptical of the legitimacy of those authorities in the first place. Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on you and Jacee to prove your claims about the absolute legal authority of the treaties, charter, constitution, etc. rather than on me since I appear to have the more reasonable null hypothesis.

Now if you want to redefine legal authority to mean 'legal authority within its legal framework' you could do that but then legal authority would mean the same thing as legality, so what is the point?

[-1=e^ipi]

ll.

-1=e^ipi, on 04 Feb 2014 - 3:42 PM, said:

Because you were implying that the authority of those that made the laws regarding first nations issues should not be questioned

Is this ANOTHER one of your famous misinterpretations? What I actually said was:

Accountability Now, on 31 Jan 2014 - 6:13 PM, said:

They're the same people that made many other laws we have so I don't really question their authority. I just question the current courts interpretation of what both sides intended

I never said that THE LAWS regaring First Nations should not be questioned (but don't let me stop you from making your strawman).

How do you have so much reading comprehension fail? How is 'the authority of those that made the laws' the same thing as 'the laws'?

The other three examples have current election process every number of years where the people elect a group that will carry out laws AS PER the will of the current day people. Take the US for example....one of the ammendments of their constitution is the right to bear arms. We know that this is a highly contentious issue that has a possibility of being altered because the CURRENT day people want it to be so regardless of what was imposed by their forefathers.

As such, the authority of all laws DOES NOT depend of past laws but is built off them and made better. But in no way is it held captive to those past laws so don't confuse it as such.

You are confusing the fact that laws can change with the concept that the legal authority of a law depends on the legal authority of previous laws and on the legal framework in which those laws are created. Those individuals could only be elected because there was a legal framework & laws that said they could be elected. So the legal authority of any laws they pass depends on the legal authority of the framework & laws which allowed them to be elected. Perhaps a new senator was only elected because a new electoral district was created. So the legal authority of laws created by this senator depend on the legal authority of the senator which depends on the legal authority of the law that created the new district, which depends on the legal authority of those that made the new district into law (so previous senators). And you can keep going back until you get to the American revolution. And who is to say those that imposed the declaration of independence had the legal authority to do so? Some could consider the American revolution illegal and that instead America should belong to Britain and not be independent. The point is all legal authority is ultimately imposed by force.

since I don't live in Saudi Arabia, I cannot question the law itself.

Why not? Are you imposing an ad hominem fallacy on yourself?

Of course, I find it funny that this law has stood for so long and their own people don't question it.

Funny? I find it sad. But if other people being beheaded simply for having different beliefs amuses you then that says a lot about your moral character. And people do question it... they are just beheaded shortly after.

Perhaps the majority of the people are in agreement with this law regardless of how a few westerners like you and I would feel. If it was so bad and so immoral then one would expect the people to rise up. Of course, that notion may again be only applicable to westerner like us.

Oh look, cultural relativism.

And as shown above, we have the CURRENT power to change those laws making their past authority trivial which is why again I don't question their authority.

Wait, is your position now that their past authority shouldn't be questioned because it doesn't need to be questioned since it is unnecessary to question in order to change the law, or is your position still that their authority shouldn't be questioned because their authority is absolute? Those are 2 different positions.

[-1=e^ipi]

Sure it does. We've been talking about laws and lawmakers in Canada and you deviate over to human rights issues around the world. Apples to oranges or as you like to say...strawman!

As for my claim...it was against the law back then to steal or to murder just the same as it is now. So no retraction needed.

If you go back to page 4, you will see that your original claim was only restricted by time period, it wasn't restricted by nation or geographical area. If you wish to change your position, then that is fine. But please be more clear.

[jacee]

He asked you to justify them morally, not legally. Legality is not the same as morality. Laws can be immoral. Comprehend?

People have different views on morality, and are entitled to, so I see no point in arguing that. The law is what we have in common and generally live by.

Edited February 5, 2014 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Sigh, your statement: "I agree with you but you should ask a Native if they are Canadian. Remember....they like to deal with us Nation to Nation." doesn't magically make your other statement : "They consider themselves sovereign nations who should be dealing with Canada on a nation to nation basis." not ambiguous. If you want to not be misinterpreted, do not use ambiguous statements.

Oh and the drama flares up again. Sigh....whoa is me! Oh the insanity of it all!!!

I understand that you have problems reading even the clearest of statments so I guess I should not expect you to understand the tone of statements. However, you were the one trying to chastice me about the "us" versus "them" when this statement first came out but now you are saying that I am on their side and agree they should be treated as a nation. Can you please get it togehter already.

So you disagree with the premise that a group of people can own territory based on where their ancestors are from?

No...I disagree with the premise that First Nations own territory...something that you based your whole long winded post on.

So now you claim that the Natives had rights to the lands, but your previous statement was that they did not own the land. Could you please tell me what these 'rights to the lands' are and how they are morally justified?

First off....having rights to use the land is different than owning the land. You have the right to use crown land for hunting or fishing or to even purchase the mineral rights....that does not mean you own the land.

Secondly....you clearly don't understand the dichotomy involved here. An agreement was struck by two groups who had different meanings of what was happening. As such you need to explore the plausiblity of both sides. The British believed in land ownership and the Natives did not beleive in ownership but the right to use the land. So saying that we own the land doesn't actually work within the frame work of this agreement however saying that the natives ceded and surrendered all rights to the land does as it satisifes both sides as the Brits get the land and Natives don't.

As for the moral justification.....there is no moral justification. A deal was made by the natives based on looming pressure of continued settlements from the British and attacks from the Americans. They made a best case decision not based on morality but for something that would keep them from extinction. You could argue that the British weren't morally in tact for making such agreements when they could have just all lived happily together but the reality is that if the natives were to continue on as their own nation and the Brits did the same then that would have made both sides more vulnerable....moreso the natives though. As such it probably was the best moral decision based on the circumstances.

[Accountability Now]

Wow... clearly you do not comprehend the difference between a claim and a position. A position can consist of a baseless claim, or it can also be a claim plus justification. The reason you strawman my position is not because you misrepresent my claim, but because you misrepresent the justification I use for that claim.

Are you serious here? Your claim was just that...baseless. I hardly approached it when you first said as I just commented that I don't really question their authority. No attack or misrepresentation at all. BUT THEN....you go off defending your baseless claim using these two justification points.

1. Illustrating that these people created and lived in an era with other immoral laws

2. Illustrating these people were not elected and properly entitled based on merit.

As I showed both of your justification points are flawed which therefore makes your baseless claim flawed too. If you have another justification for your baseless claim then present it, otherwise put your tail between your legs and run off.

So you and Jacee can continue with your bullshit claims about how the legal authority of the racist laws shouldn't be questioned, or whatever. But it won't make for a convincing argument if I'm skeptical of the legitimacy of those authorities in the first place. Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on you and Jacee to prove your claims about the absolute legal authority of the treaties, charter, constitution, etc. rather than on me since I appear to have the more reasonable null hypothesis.

Do you drink a lot? The fact that you would make this statement clearly shows that you can't comprehend anything that has been said. In fact I have clearly stated that I am against the reserve system, the Indian act and I am in favor or reexamining the 'racicst laws". I highlighted your post because you even quoted my post that shows where I said this:

I never said that THE LAWS regaring First Nations should not be questioned (but don't let me stop you from making your strawman).

Again...you get so riled up about me saying that we should honor the treaties but yet you COMPLETELY and TOTALLY gloss over what I say about how we should honor them. If we honor the treaties to the word they were written then it would make them leave the reserves and the pass over the treaties. As you mentioned, you can't just cut off the treaties as it would cause chaos.

[Accountability Now]

How do you have so much reading comprehension fail? How is 'the authority of those that made the laws' the same thing as 'the laws'?

This is one that you need to print off and put in a frame as it truly highlights your perpetual fails. Originally, you claimed that I was IMPLYING that the authority of these laws SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED. I then reposted my original post and asked you where in that post I said or implied that we should not question it. Hell....I even put your comments in red to make it easier on you and that still didn't work.

For the umpteenth time, it is ok to question the treaties or any other laws we have today.

The point is all legal authority is ultimately imposed by force.

And people in the CURRENT system can also use force to change the way things were done in the PAST....IF NEEDED. Again...the system is built on the past but not confined to it.

Why not? Are you imposing an ad hominem fallacy on yourself?

You're still trying to figure out what a strawman is. I don't think you're ready for ad hominem.

Funny? I find it sad. But if other people being beheaded simply for having different beliefs amuses you then that says a lot about your moral character. And people do question it... they are just beheaded shortly after.

You really struggle with the English language....don't you? I thought it was just your reading comprehension but in fact its that you don't understand that words can have different meanings. Let me provide you with the definition of 'funny':

Funny:

1. Causing laughter or amusement; humerous

2. Difficult to explain or understand;strange

PS. I highlighted the one in red to give you a hint of which version I may have been using. Or would you rather have me spell this out for you?

Wait, is your position now that their past authority shouldn't be questioned because it doesn't need to be questioned since it is unnecessary to question in order to change the law, or is your position still that their authority shouldn't be questioned because their authority is absolute? Those are 2 different positions.

Ah....now after pages of you bumbling and stumbling around you finally figure it out. Perhaps if you would actually read what I said rather than jumping off on your self serving tangent you would have seen that I was never stating that their authority was absolute even though you wanted me to say that so that you would have something to spew on about. Again...reading helps you understand. I suggest you try it sometime.

[-1=e^ipi]

No...I disagree with the premise that First Nations own territory...something that you based your whole long winded post on.

So if you do not disagree with the premise that a group of people can own land based on where their ancestors are from, can you please indicate a group of people that owns land based on where their ancestors are from and indicate the land that they own?

First off....having rights to use the land is different than owning the land. You have the right to use crown land for hunting or fishing or to even purchase the mineral rights....that does not mean you own the land.

If you want to consider 'rights to use land' and ownership as completely different then fine. Though some would argue that ownership of land is simply having a set of 'rights to use land' and that 'rights to use land' is a form of partial ownership. But anyway, even with a change in terminology my questions still stand. Are you saying that a group of people has 'rights to use land' based on where their ancestors are from? If so, how does one determine which land someone has 'rights to use' based on their ancestry?

An agreement was struck by two groups who had different meanings of what was happening. As such you need to explore the plausiblity of both sides. The British believed in land ownership and the Natives did not beleive in ownership but the right to use the land. So saying that we own the land doesn't actually work within the frame work of this agreement however saying that the natives ceded and surrendered all rights to the land does as it satisifes both sides as the Brits get the land and Natives don't.

See I can believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but it doesn't mean it exists. Even if natives from hundreds of years ago believed that they had 'rights to land' does not actually mean these 'rights to land' actually exist. You need to prove that they exist. So please prove that these rights exist.

As I showed both of your justification points are flawed which therefore makes your baseless claim flawed too. If you have another justification for your baseless claim then present it, otherwise put your tail between your legs and run off.

I do not have a tail as I am human and was not born with a weird spinal deformity.

And stating that my justification is flawed doesn't make it flawed. I responded to your so called 'counter argument', but if you wish to ignore that and just claim that you have disprove my justification then what can I do?

Do you drink a lot?

No, I do not drink.

In fact I have clearly stated that I am against the reserve system, the Indian act and I am in favor or reexamining the 'racicst laws". I highlighted your post because you even quoted my post that shows where I said this:

Again...you get so riled up about me saying that we should honor the treaties but yet you COMPLETELY and TOTALLY gloss over what I say about how we should honor them. If we honor the treaties to the word they were written then it would make them leave the reserves and the pass over the treaties. As you mentioned, you can't just cut off the treaties as it would cause chaos.

How do you not understand this? There is a difference between 'laws' and 'legal authority'. 'Laws' can be questioned in many different ways, one of the possibilities being poor 'legal authority'. You are questioning the law for a reason other than 'legal authority' (i.e. you think that the interpretation of the treaties by the courts is false).

And i'm not saying that the treaties shouldn't be honored. I'm saying that the treaties shouldn't be honored BECAUSE they have some sort of indisputable legal authority. They should be honored BECAUSE if a government doesn't honor them you will have riots, protests, blocking of resource developments, and most likely violence and deaths. They should be honored for practical reasons, not because they have some indisputable legal authority that we should never question.

See for some people, justification for a claim actually matters.

For the umpteenth time, it is ok to question the treaties or any other laws we have today.

And for the umpteenth time, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a law/treaty and the legal authority of that law/treaty.

You really struggle with the English language....don't you? I thought it was just your reading comprehension but in fact its that you don't understand that words can have different meanings. Let me provide you with the definition of 'funny':

Geez, I am sorry for taking what people mean literally. In such discussions/debates where people often misinterpret each other or perform strawman arguments it is important to avoid ambiguous language and take what people say literally rather than what you think they mean.

But apparently it's my fault that you choose to use ambiguous language. Why did you not just use strange if you meant strange?

And in general you seem to like ambiguous terminology and you like to confuse meaning to hide behind a veil of ambiguity. It is why you try to confuse legal authority with authority with moral authority with legality with laws.