5 ms·

The modern regulatory state forces pretty much everyone to do all sorts of things. People are prevented from aging cheese less than 30 days, from having sex wit

The modern regulatory state forces pretty much everyone to do all sorts of things. People are prevented from aging cheese less than 30 days, from having sex with people for money, forced to purchase unwanted health insurance, and penalized if they don't rent or purchase a home. A person can own a piece of land for decades, and suddenly wetland regulation or a community action board can prevent them from using that land. Why is it bad to impose similar burdens on the Yup'ik?

Terretta 12y ago
> forced to purchase unwanted health insurance Very few are willing to live with the consequences of this which ought to be letting the person who didn't get health insurance die because they chose to not afford care. If you really believe you shouldn't force people to protect themselves, you should believe you shouldn't "force" them to recover when they're sick. Or, if you do believe they shouldn't be left to die, and that you shouldn't force them to purchase individual health insurance, a logical reconciliation of those two positions is universal health care. > Why is it bad to impose similar burdens on the Yup'ik? I would agree with you here. Reading between the lines suggests the dwindling catches are causing them to adopt more aggressive fishing measures, a vicious cycle of bad consequences. Dialing back their new fishing to earlier methods isn't imposing a burden as much as thwarting total collapse from their own changes.
Pxtl 12y ago
Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing. You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. THe idea is that indigenous groups are supposed to self-govern as much as possible... but there's no way these tiny middle-of-nowhere towns can build up enough infrastructure to run their own federal government.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. You also can't say that if the place with the obnoxious rules is your home country. Which tends to be the majority of people. "If you don't like it leave" works equally well in both cases tho. ("Equally well" meaning "not very" of course...)
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  My ancestors are Sicilian, Greek, German and a bunch of other things. I've never met an ancestor who was born outside the US. Can you say to me, "if you don't like it go back to Sicily"? (Note that I speak no Italian outside the kitchen and I doubt Sicily would let me immigrate.)
  - ddorian43 12y ago
    dude i understand italian but not sicilian, so in your case it's much harder source: watch Gomorrah movie
- crusso 12y ago
  Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing There isn't a homosapien alive whose ancestors' people weren't subjected to some sort of brutality. Either the rules should apply to everyone or they should apply to no one. Carving up perpetual special classes in any society will always serve to divide that society and promote dysfunction.
  - ewzimm 12y ago
    This is not about ancestors or special classes. A lot of people seem to be missing the fact that most indigenous tribes are sovereign nations with their own laws and government which have existed since long before the U.S.A. This is why we have casinos on tribal lands while they are banned elsewhere. The laws are different. Treaties with these people are the only reason the U.S.A. even exists, although they are regularly ignored. The fact is that it is disingenuous to pretend to have a nation governed by the rule of law while ignoring the rights of older sovereign nations which exist within your borders. Not all tribes have the same rights and status, but how we treat them is the best indicator of how legitimate our own legal structure can claim to be.
    - crusso 12y ago
      I was responding to my parent poster's argument, not yours. If this particular case is about national sovereignty of indigenous tribes, why is the ACLU mounting a first amendment religious protection defense?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. You can't really validly say that to anyone but aliens and non-citizen immigrants -- for everyone else in the country, it is their country, whether or not their ancestors came from elsewhere (which they did, at some point).
EGreg 12y ago
Because presumably they are outside our jurisdiction and we are treating them as an externality.
wusher 12y ago
> Why is it bad to impose similar burdens on the Yup'ik? Maybe it would be better to ask why it is bad to impose those ( and many others not mentioned) burdens on everyone as opposed to asking why we aren't burdening everyone equally.

Terretta 12y ago

> forced to purchase unwanted health insurance Very few are willing to live with the consequences of this which ought to be letting the person who didn't get health insurance die because they chose to not afford care. If you really believe you shouldn't force people to protect themselves, you should believe you shouldn't "force" them to recover when they're sick. Or, if you do believe they shouldn't be left to die, and that you shouldn't force them to purchase individual health insurance, a logical reconciliation of those two positions is universal health care. > Why is it bad to impose similar burdens on the Yup'ik? I would agree with you here. Reading between the lines suggests the dwindling catches are causing them to adopt more aggressive fishing measures, a vicious cycle of bad consequences. Dialing back their new fishing to earlier methods isn't imposing a burden as much as thwarting total collapse from their own changes.

Pxtl 12y ago

Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing. You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. THe idea is that indigenous groups are supposed to self-govern as much as possible... but there's no way these tiny middle-of-nowhere towns can build up enough infrastructure to run their own federal government.

tbrownaw 12y ago
You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. You also can't say that if the place with the obnoxious rules is your home country. Which tends to be the majority of people. "If you don't like it leave" works equally well in both cases tho. ("Equally well" meaning "not very" of course...)
yummyfajitas 12y ago
My ancestors are Sicilian, Greek, German and a bunch of other things. I've never met an ancestor who was born outside the US. Can you say to me, "if you don't like it go back to Sicily"? (Note that I speak no Italian outside the kitchen and I doubt Sicily would let me immigrate.)
- ddorian43 12y ago
  dude i understand italian but not sicilian, so in your case it's much harder source: watch Gomorrah movie
crusso 12y ago
Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing There isn't a homosapien alive whose ancestors' people weren't subjected to some sort of brutality. Either the rules should apply to everyone or they should apply to no one. Carving up perpetual special classes in any society will always serve to divide that society and promote dysfunction.
- ewzimm 12y ago
  This is not about ancestors or special classes. A lot of people seem to be missing the fact that most indigenous tribes are sovereign nations with their own laws and government which have existed since long before the U.S.A. This is why we have casinos on tribal lands while they are banned elsewhere. The laws are different. Treaties with these people are the only reason the U.S.A. even exists, although they are regularly ignored. The fact is that it is disingenuous to pretend to have a nation governed by the rule of law while ignoring the rights of older sovereign nations which exist within your borders. Not all tribes have the same rights and status, but how we treat them is the best indicator of how legitimate our own legal structure can claim to be.
  - crusso 12y ago
    I was responding to my parent poster's argument, not yours. If this particular case is about national sovereignty of indigenous tribes, why is the ACLU mounting a first amendment religious protection defense?
dragonwriter 12y ago
> You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. You can't really validly say that to anyone but aliens and non-citizen immigrants -- for everyone else in the country, it is their country, whether or not their ancestors came from elsewhere (which they did, at some point).

EGreg 12y ago

Because presumably they are outside our jurisdiction and we are treating them as an externality.

wusher 12y ago

> Why is it bad to impose similar burdens on the Yup'ik? Maybe it would be better to ask why it is bad to impose those ( and many others not mentioned) burdens on everyone as opposed to asking why we aren't burdening everyone equally.