I imagine he means that the natives/first peoples don't have full property rights like those outside of reservations have. If I understand correctly, much of th

I imagine he means that the natives/first peoples don't have full property rights like those outside of reservations have. If I understand correctly, much of the land on reservations is "communal" (communist or the extream end of "socialist"). Apparently, there's a big issue getting title to land which according to the following article, explains the abundance of mobile homes on reservations: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoppisch/2011/12/13/why-are-indian-reservations-so-poor-a-look-at-the-bottom-1/#739b8eee337a http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoppisch/2011/12/13/why-are-... Part of the typical "bundle of rights" in property ownership is the ability to abstract natural resources (plant, animal, mineral, energy). Without true property rights and ability for land to serve as collateral, the risk of capital lending is very high. You can't finance a home, you can't invest in a manufacturing plant, you can't get a farm loan, you can't mine the land, (both due to lack of mineral rights and that no bank will loan money for the equipment). This is why reservations are poor; same reasons socialist/communist states were/are poor: Tragedy of the commons. This type of land socialism should not be confused with "social" safety nets like health care and social security. If I were a native, I'd be pretty pissed if the "white man" were running his pipelines through my territory, ancestral or not, while I got little in return. In my opinion, the reservations should be brought under the legal jurisdiction of the United States and treated as US territories. Also, learning about Russell Means, a Lakota libertarian activist, is worthwhile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Means