Harper Government Ignoring Aboriginals

[Smallc]

What if it were Muslims that were trying to assimilate you? Would you take death then?

Isn't that a straw man?

[cybercoma]

Isn't that a straw man?

How so? He's comparing assimilation and genocide. So I picked a different culture and asked how he would like to be assimilated into it.

[Smallc]

But assimilation isn't genocide. It cheapens genocide. Oh, and North American culture isn't in any way comparable to Islam.

[Peter F]

You are the one who made a silly analogy. If you want to argue that we should create a race based class of parasites that are supported by "rents" then you should just say that is what you believe. Don't try to hide it by pretending these "rents" are just like municipal taxes which people already pay.

That said, the reason these claims are so hard to resolve is politicians know that agreeing to do something like that will be unacceptable to the vast majority of the voting public yet they are faced with native groups that demand exactly that. The only option the government has is to work on problem areas like education with the pragmatists like Alteo. The trouble is Alteo was tossed out for making too many "concessions" which means the government has no choice by to walk away because there is no middle ground to be found with the fanatics like Palmater.

If FN has claim to the land then the government must, by the treaty agreements, collect the rent. Perhaps the government will do so through a tax.

Such monies collected will then be held in trust or submitted to the FN's involved. And, yes, I understand that paying such when you never had to before will really truly bug your butt.

Edittoadd: I agree that the reasons these claims are never resolved is because of the backlash from voters who will blame the politicians

for their taxes/rents rising. But that does not negate the fact (if true) that certain lands by treaty actually do belong to specific FN's and are thus due their rightful rents/royalties.

So the fault isn't those stubborn natives that insist the treaties be adhered to. Its the fault of present and past governments - and the electorate as a whole - who, out of fear, refuse to address the issue.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Peter F

[TimG]

But that does not negate the fact (if true) that certain lands by treaty actually do belong to specific FN's and are thus due their rightful rents/royalties.

They are only "rightful" if you agree that feudalism is an acceptable foundation for our society. I reject that premise for the same reason I reject slavery and "rights" based on treaty claims are as illegitimate as a slave owner's deed of ownership.

To pre-empt your claim that these are the same as property rights: if a non-native makes money, buys land and gives it to his children then taxes are due on capital gain each generation. This is in addition to probate fees. Furthermore, the democratic majority has the option of adding inheritance taxes as it sees fit. OTOH, Native land rights are free from taxation and there is no mechanism that would allow the sharing of accrued wealth over generations. This latter characteristic is what makes treaty rights completely immoral.

[Peter F]

Understood; you do not agree that the treaties have/should have legal force.

[Peter F]

They are only "rightful" if you agree that feudalism is an acceptable foundation for our society. I reject that premise for the same reason I reject slavery and "rights" based on treaty claims are as illegitimate as a slave owner's deed of ownership.

So are royalties paid to a government - say by an oil extraction company - illegitimate?

[TimG]

So are royalties paid to a government - say by an oil extraction company - illegitimate?

Resource extractors benefit by being given exclusive access to a finite public resource (i.e. no one else is allowed to extract where they are extracting and the resource is depleted by the extraction). Royalties are a fair payment in return for this exclusive access. Simply living on land does not deplete it and therefore does not trigger the payment of royalties. Property taxes paid because one has exclusive use of land is based on the cost of providing services to the community where the land is.

Giving native bands a share of resource royalties is just an accounting game. The government is stuck spending money supporting them and earmarking some part of the royalty revenue stream for natives is a one way to supporting them.

Edited May 15, 2014 by TimG

[Peter F]

Simply living on the land does indeed deplete it; Clearing the land, sewage, water use etc etc etc.

Thats why there are laws restricting public use of private land and allowing for rents etc

Edited May 15, 2014 by Peter F

[TimG]

Simply living on the land does indeed deplete it; Clearing the land, sewage, water use etc etc etc

No it does not. When diamonds or oil are taken out of the ground there is no longer any value in the ground.

Property still has value even if it is developed. A lot of times a property has more value if it is developed.

(i.e. a lot with no trees and house is more valuable than a lot with trees).

Edited May 15, 2014 by TimG

[Peter F]

So I can go squat on your private property no problem.

[TimG]

So I can go squat on your private property no problem.

No. Owning property means I have exclusive access. Once a property has been sold to private interests the government is obligated to respect the exclusive rights that go with private ownership unless it buys it back at market value. Property taxes may be levied but only enough to cover the cost of providing services.

The property itself is NOT depleted by private ownership since the land is still there and if the government needs it it can buy it back with all improvements that have been done. This is not true for a resource that is extracted and sold.

Edited May 15, 2014 by TimG

[Peter F]

Ah, so FN's have exclusive access to the area ceded to them by treaty. Got it.

[TimG]

Ah, so FN's have exclusive access to the area ceded to them by treaty. Got it.

No - because if I own property I cannot pass it on to my children without paying taxes on the capital gains + probate fees. In some cases, I may be forced to sell the property to pay the taxes. FN "ownership" is not subject to these taxes which means is it is not the same. It is a race based feudal privilege which has no place in a democratic egalitarian society.

Edited to add: I could set up a corporation and transfer the land to corporation. But if I issue shares to my children after the land is transferred my children must pay taxes on the income tax based on the book value of the corporation. I also have to pay capital gains when I do the transfer and the corporation pays tax on any income. If new shares are issued to my grandchildren when they are born then they must pay income tax too. When I die capital gains must be paid on the value of my shares. Revenue Canada has spent a lot of time trying to make sure that taxes cannot be avoided by setting up corporations.

Edited May 15, 2014 by TimG

[Peter F]

You're talking about taxes now. Did the FN's have land ceded to them or not?

[TimG]

You're talking about taxes now. Did the FN's have land ceded to them or not?

You are playing a game where you seek to rationalize the feudal rights given to natives by trying to pretend they are no different than the property rights that everyone else has. The trouble is that belief is simply not true because native rights have different taxation and inheritance rules - rules that are only available to people with the right genetic lineage.

Now you can go ahead and argue that creating a class of feudal lords is a good thing because you have misplaced guilt over what happened hundreds of years ago, however, you should stop trying to pretend that these rights are the same as the rights that everyone else has.

I would also suggest that if you feel the urge to complain about the 1% that you should remind yourself that you have no problems with a minority of people controlling a large portion of the wealth of society as long as the minority has the right skin color.

Edited May 15, 2014 by TimG

[Peter F]

yumpin yimminy. Did the Crown cede land to FN's or not?

[TimG]

yumpin yimminy. Did the Crown cede land to FN's or not?

Answer your own question. I am not playing your games because it has nothing to do with the point I am making. Now if you are not going to bother actually addressing my points I guess I will have to assume it is because you can't. Edited May 15, 2014 by TimG

[Argus]

What if it were Muslims that were trying to assimilate you? Would you take death then?

That's a really dumb question.

[Argus]

If FN has claim to the land then the government must, by the treaty agreements, collect the rent. Perhaps the government will do so through a tax.

I'm guessing you're among the 1/3 of Canadians who don't pay taxes.

[Peter F]

I'd tell you what I'm guessing, but I don't want the demerit point.

[PIK]

I would take the report more seriously if the U.N. issued a "scathing" report on Myanmar's mistreatment of Muslims (link), Russian violence in the Caucasus (link), Russian interference in Ukraine, or, until the recent kidnappings, Boko Haram's activities in Nigeria. Or for that matter Shabab's atrocities in Somalia (where they drove out Doctors Without Borders) and Kenya (link).

The UN is coming after canada because harper is not afraid to call them out, for the joke they have become and what is worse is the canadians that agree with the UN just because they don't like harper.Now this raptuer(SP) I hear is resigning and his wife is the replacement, nepotism anyone. I heard it on TV but I will try and find a link. Edited May 15, 2014 by PIK

[PIK]

I'd tell you what I'm guessing, but I don't want the demerit point.

Tell me and I will, I think I am leading in demerit pts.

[cybercoma]

That's a really dumb question.

The question is only as dumb as the comment I was responding to.

[Smallc]

Aboriginal culture is part of Canadian culture. There is only one country, and the reality is very different than that put forward by many activist leaders.