Are Restrictions Necessary?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

None of those things are requirements for land ownership.

Er...you said "use equates to ownership" and I said "That's the same argument the europeans used, they claims the natives weren't demonstrating use, thus weren't demonstrating ownership". I don't recall saying that the Europeans were correct, or whether the natives were using the land or not, I just supported you by pointing out that they set the same standard you did, regardless of how accurately or inaccurately it was applied.

No it isn't. Land doesn't have to be formally demarcated to be owned. Any land which is demonstrated to be used, in any capacity, is owned.

Right...once again, I was supporting what you said, namely "Even if the natives weren't staking individual property, the tribes as a whole were, thus landowners"

Using Canadian law to justify the practices of Canadian government is just a tad bit circular.

See above where I stated explicitly: "If you don't think they are legitimate, you won't think their application of law is legitimate either, but if you do, this is how that application occurs"

I was simply providing the actual information that needed to accompany cavernio's claims earlier, not applying values of veracity to them.