Are Restrictions Necessary?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

If such a point were easily identifiable, then there wouldn't ever be any problems, now would there be.

The reason it isn't readily identifiable is because there is no non-arbitrary basis for it.

It is possible for land to be unowned, however, if this is the case, then there's no problem with a government taking it.

Yes there is. Government traditionally takes things by decree. For instance, they decree everything west of the Mississippi to be within their territory. The traditional idea of what makes property ownership valid is that when labor is in some way mixed with something unowned, it creates ownership.

If you want to get picky, I believe originally, aboriginals didn't claim any land. In their opinion, land was not to be owned. So technically, they had no legitimate claim to property, under, what I guess we can consider standard western law, that they did not agree with.

I've heard this about virtually every indigenous group ever to exist. I'm not even sure if it's true. Land is frequently communally owned. It is rarely considered completely unowned. Even so, they would have a claim to land, based on their combination of labor and natural resources. They would just be rescinding that claim by stating otherwise.

However, re-iterating my point, even if they did, it still does not mean that 4 generations or something of the like, down the line, 'us' who're now people who never took the land, should not have to give back land to 'them', whose land was never actually taken.

In some cases I think we do. In cases where land was considered the communal property of a specific tribe, for instance, any claim of blood heritage seems like a valid basis for a claim to land.

As far as aboriginal rights to land are concerned, it's totally up to whether or not you consider them canadian or not.

Um, ok.

That aboriginals were treated terribly at one point, that land was immorally taken away from them, is generations past, and really isn't the issue.

...why?

Currently, aboriginals follow canadian law and benefit from canada's tax dollars through countless public programs, while not having to pay taxes.

Why is this relevant. Suppose I benefit indirectly from the murder of neighbor B, who neighbor A kills. Neighbor A then gives me neighbor B's car, under the condition I come play poker with him every Tuesday. Other neighbors have to play poker every Tuesday and Wednesday.

Why is this arrangement anything less than unacceptable?

Also, does it make sense that someone should be able to have access to resources that other canadians don't have access to, considering that that someone follows other canadian regulations, simply because of their ancestry?

Yes, because the ancestry gives a legitimate claim to those resources.

Should there be special government intervention for these essentially fully canadian people where help is desperately needed? Yes.

Why?

Keep in mind this would all be different if all aboriginals stood up and made some sort of formal, unified claim that they're officially independent.

Why?