4 ms·

Indigenous control of resources. The people who live in a place get to make decisions. You’re not allowed to control a mine 200 miles away from where you live a

Indigenous control of resources. The people who live in a place get to make decisions. You’re not allowed to control a mine 200 miles away from where you live and eat, without the permission of the people who do live and eat near the mine. With this, right of return for anyone living in diaspora. We can transition from capitalism to that via an intermediate stage of anarcho-syndicalism with syndicates that own property and pay taxes. Capitalism isn’t “evil” or “useless” it’s just a temporary stage in our development.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Indigenous control of resources. The people who live in a place get to make decisions. This sounds like democratic socialism with some arbitrary restriction on polity scope. > With this, right of return for anyone living in diaspora. How do you concretely define this? This would be a big deal with existing scale polities, but it with your implied smaller polities, it becomes an even hotter issue. > Capitalism isn’t “evil” or “useless” it’s just a temporary stage in our development. Agreed.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  > This sounds like democratic socialism with some arbitrary restriction on polity scope. There's no implication of socialism, but yes I expect some form of democrasy could be involved. All laws are "arbitrary restrictions on policy scope". > How do you concretely define [right of return]? I don't have any strong expectations about the details. In my head as a straw man is something like: If you (A) were born in a place, or (B) lived there for 4 years before the age of 20, you can claim it as your homeland. You may claim up to two homelands. Half of every 10,000 hectare region on earth must be reserved to be split equally among indigenous people. I agree it'd be a hot sell. I see it more as a guiding principle than a practical global policy proposal. I believe we will end up in a world that approximates that policy, through gradual embrace of caring policies in all locales.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Indigenous control of resources. The people who live in a place get to make decisions. This sounds like democratic socialism with some arbitrary restriction on polity scope. > With this, right of return for anyone living in diaspora. How do you concretely define this? This would be a big deal with existing scale polities, but it with your implied smaller polities, it becomes an even hotter issue. > Capitalism isn’t “evil” or “useless” it’s just a temporary stage in our development. Agreed.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
> This sounds like democratic socialism with some arbitrary restriction on polity scope. There's no implication of socialism, but yes I expect some form of democrasy could be involved. All laws are "arbitrary restrictions on policy scope". > How do you concretely define [right of return]? I don't have any strong expectations about the details. In my head as a straw man is something like: If you (A) were born in a place, or (B) lived there for 4 years before the age of 20, you can claim it as your homeland. You may claim up to two homelands. Half of every 10,000 hectare region on earth must be reserved to be split equally among indigenous people. I agree it'd be a hot sell. I see it more as a guiding principle than a practical global policy proposal. I believe we will end up in a world that approximates that policy, through gradual embrace of caring policies in all locales.