Reaction

(to Paul Geddes's "Nishga or not to Nisga'a" in the February 1999 issue)
April 1999

by Pierre Lemieux

I found your article very close to what I would have written - although I might have concluded on the other half of the fence, but I am not sure.

by Gordon Gibson

If I understand you correctly, libertarian principles suggest a settlement for land appropriation is in order, though you question the quantum and who should pay. I am not clear whether there is also in your thinking a concept of restitution for history, as opposed to the pure property matter. In any event, this is I think what most British Columbians feel should happen.

It is the matter of ongoing governance that is far more complex. Perhaps libertarian principles would finesse this question in a perfect world by the minimization of government. Here (i.e. the Nisga'a Treaty) the question is exactly that which you recognize - i.e. the individual and the collective. I will be writing further for the Fraser Institute on these questions...

by Jack Boulogne

It is with great interest that I read Paul Geddes' argument in favor of the Nishga agreement, although with many reservations. In this letter I argue for a far superior settlement of native moral claims to restitution, which is a little different from a property claim. The issue of legal and moral property rights is so complex, that lawyers, who will be the chief long term beneficiary of government designed settlements, rejoice, whilst the Supreme Being squirms with discomfort at seeing so much stupid human behavior.

The far superior solution is the straight cash settlement. This is based on the straightforward idea that when justice claims become impossible to settle by sheer complexity, reason must take over the job of morality. In my new book, "Morality is a 4-way Stop", I also point out that warfare is where morality fails. It is far from clear whether the relations between Old Americans and New Americans were ever one of complete peace. The aboriginals, who themselves had a history of genocide, slavery and other bad behavior, made determined efforts to slaughter the descendants of Europeans and their allied native groupings. In short, the justice question is a total mess, to the everlasting delight of lawyers.

But if justice fails, then we still have that other great moral virtue, kindness. I take it as a given that almost all Canadians have a bit of a guilt trip about the oldest inhabitants, although I am fond of pointing out to any one who will listen that I have lived longer in Canada than most "native" people. Even I who as a libertarian regards "altruism" with great suspicion, am moved to pity when I hear of drug abuse and suicide and a host of other kinds of misery. So let's begin with Kindness, and add Reason. Reason tells me and Rafe Mair, and perhaps other BCers, that if you offered native people $100,000 each (man, woman and child), to sign a paper, watched over by their family lawyer, that states the person asserts that he or she or it - in the case of children - has full rights of membership in Canada, but waives special status under the Constitution, the whole aboriginal problem will wither away over a period of less than ten years, say.

Since this proposal is so simple, so honest, so rational, so cheap - compared to the never ending fiscal drain of "Indian Affairs" dealings - it will be fought by bitterly determined special interest groups. The lawyers will shudder at the loss of revenue. The politicians, who by this purely legal process, will be shut out of the decision train, will be deeply offended. The bitterest opponents will be the native leaders - some of whom have actually been voted into power democratically - who will see their power base fade away. But a libertarian struggles against personal power, and hopes to replace it by justice power.

Much opposition will come from moralists, like Paul who cry "But it isn't fair to buy people off". But that's like the Marxist argument that workers are enslaved by employers because they give them unfairly high wages, which they cannot resist. The proposal is eminently fair, because consent rules everything. The native person who is willing to wait thirty years for land claim arguments to finally yield him a cash benefit will not be subjected to advertising campaigns and other pressure to sign up. If no aboriginal person elects to take the hundred big ones, then there is no loss. In fact it may be interpreted as a sign of good will on all Canadians to get rid of stubborn old evils. If all sign, we can all heave a sigh of relief, and car dealers can utter a shout of joy, not to mention shoe store owners and dentists. Real estate agents may also benefit, because some native people will actually choose to buy land. Even if most sign, and some don't, the problem will have grown that much smaller and the bulk of lawyers can move to other enticing fields, such as divorce law.

To conclude, Paul my solution of the honestly motivated buy-out is far superior to committee produced solutions which are worse than the problem. What really bothers me about the Nishga and ten thousand others coming up, is that consent is obviously not a working factor; only 64% of the Nishga approve of the treaty, and whether it's the cash or the land that matters to them we don't know, and the score of the people who are going to pay for this agreement, the general citizenry, is roughly 50-50 judging by the polls. Should we call this consent? One way we can tell whether a particular solution is fair or not, is to follow the "all's fair, that all think is fair" rule. The proposed government solution obviously fails that criterion, which means that we can look forward to a grim future of endless recriminations, finger pointing, deep frustration, not to mention the grim burden of sheer depression and feelings of anger, failure and oppression. Is that what you are defending, Paul?