The Seneca Nation Revolts Against the State
The action is the latest in a series by Seneca leaders angry at Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plans to collect an estimated $200 million in tax from reservation sales of gasoline, cigarettes and other goods to non-Indian customers.
The tribe plans to send the state a monthly bill for the tolls based on the state Thruway Authority's usage figures. Seneca leaders looked into buying a set of toll booths that are being removed from a Buffalo highway, but were told they were not for sale.
"If New York state would just abide by their word and leave us alone, I think we'd get along much better," J.C. Seneca, co-chairman of the nation's Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday.
More on the historical record of taxation without assimilation.
Comments (16)
They have an advantage because they're Indians. Since the white liberals in New York are still feeling guilty about what some New Englanders did to some Indians a few hundred years ago, so they will no doubt side with the Indians now in order to salve their consciences. What do you think?
Published: May 17, 2007 6:15 PM
The Governor of New York State is fast becomming one of the worst State Governors in the United States (and there is stiff competition for this).
I have heard that he wishes to take the power to appoint judges into his own hands (because he does not like some of the judges that some New York counties elect). This is interesting when one remembers the utter contempt he showed for the basic principles of law when he was a prosecutor. Even by modern standards he was terrible - he seemed determined to drive every business out of New York State.
Centralize - tax, spend and regulate. This is the Governor's line.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:40 PM
"Since the white liberals in New York are still feeling guilty about what some New Englanders did to some Indians a few hundred years ago, so they will no doubt side with the Indians now in order to salve their consciences. What do you think?"
Gabriel - there is white guilt, make no mistake, but this has nothing to do with it - why else would the liberal legislature have passed a new law taxing transactions on Indian land over a Pataki veto?
At its core this a legal issue under the Constitution, whereby the Indian treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, superior to federal and state laws. This requires the federal and state governments to find levers to squeeze the Indians, and gives the Indians means to fight back, if they have the will - and organization.
Of course the real problem holding the Indians back is their communlaistic/socialistic societies, which accord little private property rights (and thus economic opportunities) to individuals, the hand-outsthat the treaties require the government to pay, and the federal government's paternalistic (mis-)management of Indian resources. The government has little incentive to straighten up any problems, because they have served the interests of the majority white society by keeping the Indians economically weak and thus vulnerable to exploitation. This is a problem that is shared throughout the Americas.
Published: May 17, 2007 10:11 PM
I'd like to think more people would adopt a just-leave-us-alone attitude towards oppressive government (do I repeat myself?). We'd all be a lot better off for it.
At the same time, I resent that one group of people - in this case Native Americans - are treated like a coddled class. Either they are Americans and live by the same laws as everyone else, or they are not Americans, in which case they are on their own. No subsidies, tax breaks or special privileges.
This is one distinguishing trait about the state: it constantly divides its subjects into groups, pits them against one another, then takes bribes from the highest bidder for the loot stolen from the rest of us. It's a racket, and we should recognize that the parasitic class is playing us for fools.
Published: May 17, 2007 10:16 PM
Hi everybody,
IMHO, the issue is a bit more complex than just a "feeling" of guilt...
Have you ever heard about compensation for past injustices? restorative justice? retribution for criminal activities? or even liability for damages caused? ... all libertarian concepts - actually, the basis of the libertarian theory of justice, which is a process-based (and thus historical) theory of justice!
Re/ the case in hand:
The government did take their land from those people; i.e., stole their property. The fact that they have communitarian tribal structures, with some form of collectivism among members of the tribe, doesn't change anything to that fact. Then, when they tried to defend what was rightfully theirs, the government killed the vast majority of them in bloody wars and by parking them in places and conditions which where inhuman: committing the first genocide in history.
Don't you agree that it should be compensated for under libertarian principles of justice? If you are in favour of self-defence, prohibition of theft, and making the state accountable for its own abuses, I believe that you logically come to that conclusion.
Incidentally, the whole state of NY actually does belong to the Seneca Nation (on libertarian grounds of first appropriation, etc.)... and they might be the only true Americans, as they were there long before the US government. I'd think that, if racket there is, it's clearly on the other side.
The treaties referred to are superior to domestic law (both federal and state law) because they have a quasi-international character. They were peace treaties signed between different nations. Besides, the US government has even less legitimacy to pass and impose laws on Amerindians than on the rest of the population (though it's already absent there), because of mentioned historical reasons.
Last and not least, the laws and taxes proposed by the state are anyways aimed at preventing the market to respond against paternalistic and anti-libertarian attacks on people's right to smoke and trade in tobacco. The Seneca nation is actually acting here on the basis of laissez-faire principles all the way down, while the NY authorities are just playing the card of racket and coercion. Now, where do you think your sympathies should go, as a libertarian?
Cheers, M-
Published: May 18, 2007 4:17 AM
From a purely legal standpoint, the real issue is that the State of New York is trying to force the Native American nations to collect the tax and remit it to New York. If New York wants to set up collection booths just outside the borders of the tribal lands and search for and tax any new items being imported across that border by non-Native Americans, then there is no legal issue to debate. Of course, the politicians in Albany don't want to have to go to that kind of bother.
Published: May 18, 2007 8:38 AM
I've always wondered why the indians don't set up offshore banking and capital markets. They could be tax free oases in an American desert. Tax free business will generate far more profits than gambling. But since the gambling had to be approved, I addume everything must. In which case, I don't see how NY is doing anything wrong, legally speaking.
Published: May 18, 2007 9:31 AM
Steve: "Either they are Americans and live by the same laws as everyone else, or they are not Americans, in which case they are on their own. No subsidies, tax breaks or special privileges."
Obviously we agree on the "no subsidies" bit, since no one ought to be subsidized in the first place (being "American" or not has nothing to do with it). Tax breaks would be non-sensical, since as "non-Americans" they wouldn't be paying taxes in the first place. The special priviledges are a bit of a mixed bag -- some of those priviledges are things that everyone ought to be able to do anyway, and thus would be permitted. Others exist only through aggressive support by the State and would thus disappear.
M-la-maudite: "Don't you agree that it should be compensated for under libertarian principles of justice? If you are in favour of self-defence, prohibition of theft, and making the state accountable for its own abuses, I believe that you logically come to that conclusion."
M-la-maudite: "Incidentally, the whole state of NY actually does belong to the Seneca Nation (on libertarian grounds of first appropriation, etc.)... and they might be the only true Americans, as they were there long before the US government. I'd think that, if racket there is, it's clearly on the other side."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's based in collectivism. Libertarian judicial theory is individualistic. The theft-of-land argument has some backing, if any of them can demonstrate a historic claim to the specific land that was stolen; obviously that would constitute a prior claim and the land must then be returned to the ones that rightfully inherited it, rather than the heirs of those that stole it. The claim itself might be difficult to prove, however, since merely being of Native American descent can't constitute a claim to specific property, and I don't believe most of the tribes had much of a concept of land-inheritence. (Would someone more knowledgeble on their customs care to comment on that?)
Anything beyond that, however, would be a claim against those long since dead. A suit against the government now would be demanding restitution (through taxes) from those who had nothing to do with the original offense, who were not even alive at the time the offense was committed. Restitution for historic theft is one thing -- you're not punishing the person who now holds the property, because it was never really theirs to start with. (In other cases the one that was holding it might have a claim against the one who sold it to them, but here that is unlikely since both the buyer and the seller knew equally well that the land was stolen and that someone might one day return to claim it, ergo there was no fraud involved.) It is hardly libertarian, however, to punish one person for actions taken by another, even if the other person was some distant ancestor.
Published: May 18, 2007 11:02 AM
Jesse,
I do understand your points and, indeed, there are some practical difficulties with over-time restorative justice. But i don't see the question as punishing today's people for the crimes of their ancestors, more as giving back stolen property to the heirs of their rightful owners.
True, most native nations (i'm not sure whether this is or not the case for the Seneca nation) were having a communal rather than an individual notion of property. But this was not imposed by external coercion, it was so on freely agreed communitarian bases. So, depriving them of their property isn't fundamentally different from stealing the property of a private association (something clearly illegitimate).
Besides, property passes either by contract or other voluntary transactions, including the simple expression of such a will. Hence, if the will of the long-dead owners was that the land passes to future generations/members of the same tribe, i don't really see where the problem lies.
Libertarianism shouldn't be against collectivism per se; but against FORCED collectivism, by state regulations, taxes,... As long as there is no coercion involved, it's just a matter of personal choice like anything else. If i want to buy a property in common with a group of friends, and that we all live togheter in it, am i not free to do so?
Anyways, thanks for your comments, M-
Published: May 18, 2007 1:03 PM
I'm all for Indian reservations being exempt from state laws.
Published: May 18, 2007 1:56 PM
M-la-maudite, I did say that I felt the restoration-of-stolen-property argument was the strongest one of the set, and I agree that there's nothing wrong with voluntary communal ownership and the like. I simply stated that it would be difficult for most of the modern-day Native Americans to demonstrate a clear claim of ownership to the property that clearly was stolen from other Native Americans so long ago, particularly when those it was stolen from had no clear notion of private land ownership and most likely didn't explicitly will the property to their descendents.
The property wouldn't have a clear title claim in any event, since no records were kept distinguishing those parts that were actually homesteaded from the unowned land. (I doubt they could actually claim ownership of the entire territory on the basis of homesteading.) Obviously I would, however, support any claim of ownership that specified how, when, and by whom the property was homesteaded, the specific boundaries of the property, and a clear chain of voluntary exchange and/or inheritence from the original owner down to the person(s) making the claim.
Published: May 18, 2007 4:58 PM
Hi Jesse,
I agree with you that the actual claim might be extremely difficult to prove legally (and with most of what you wrote). The evidence is buried in the past, requiring historical or archival research. And all that. But the natural right would remain in case of misappropriation (in spite of practical problems in getting effective reparation) and the fact that property was passed on a more customary manner shouldn't be a problem.
Well, i guess, as libertarians, we have actually a problem here. Since compensatory justice is one of the main elements of the libertarian entitlements theory, we should find a way to deal with past injustices in an adequate manner. I'm not aware of anybody having developed in details such a theory. (I’d be grateful, if you know of anything written along those lines. I’ve read a few things but they always end-up banging into the same issues.) I recon, I’m completely at a miss here.
Apart from the issue of property, we are also left with the issue of US or state law applying to these people. And there again I've got a problem with the NY gov's position; both because of a general problem with public laws (illegitimate all over the board), and because these people were there before the US state and thus forcefully integrated in it.
Best, M-
Published: May 19, 2007 7:55 AM
Each tribe had different ideas about land ownership (the idea that private land ownership ideas were unknown among all indians is a myth).
But the idea that if land was stolen centuries ago it does not belong to its present owners is absurd. It would mean that no land ownership in the world (other than, perhaps, in Iceland) could stand - as virtually everywhere has been fought over at some time or another.
Indeed the Indian tribes fought between and within themselves.
"This does not alter the principle that if land was stolen it does not belong to the current person who claims ownership - no matter how many generations ago it was stolen".
Well if that is a libertarian principle, then libertarianism is not compatible with reality - and can only exist in a fantasy world where land was not stolen ever in history.
In reality, yes, an invader does not gain just title to land - but as time passes the new generations DO gain just title to the land.
There is nothing unlibertarian about accepting that land belongs to the current owner - even if his great, great grandfather was a beast.
Although (of course) normally land does not just get inherited. Even the aristocracy in England did not really tend to come from people who came with William in 1066.
In reality most of them (if one does a bit of digging) tend to have bought their titles centuries later than that (sometimes changing their names to make them seem aristocratic) - and to have bought their estates as well.
"Does not count - unless it can be proved that the land has never been stolen, buying the land does not give just title".
Then we are back to the fantasy world again.
Published: May 19, 2007 2:21 PM
Paul Marks: "Each tribe had different ideas about land ownership (the idea that private land ownership ideas were unknown among all [I]ndians is a myth)."
I stand corrected. I don't suppose you know whether the particular tribes in question (from the land area now known as the state of New York) had a concept of land ownership and inheritance?
Paul Marks: "But the idea that if land was stolen centuries ago it does not belong to its present owners is absurd. It would mean that no land ownership in the world (other than, perhaps, in Iceland) could stand - as virtually everywhere has been fought over at some time or another."
It's not quite so absurd as you claim, in part because we're not saying that "if land was stolen centuries ago it does not belong to its present owners". It belongs to them until someone presents a valid prior claim. The potential for a prior claim only exists so long as some living person actually received title to the property by purchase, gift, or inheritance.
I don't consider "the will of the long-dead owners was that the land passes to future generations/members of the same tribe" to be a valid transfer of property -- you can only transfer property to the living. The only way around that is to have the property held in trust, which is still transferring ownership to some living person (the trustee). Consequently, each generation would have to pass the title to the property on to the next generation. If the property was stolen, however, I would be inclined to think that it would be written off after a couple of generations and no longer included in the estate, at which point the original claim becomes abandoned on the death of the current owner. Those presently occupying the property could then homestead it for themselves. If that was not the case, and the title was indeed passed from one generation to the next and not abandoned, then I would expect the prior claim to be upheld regardless of the time that had passed in the interim.
(This would be why people usually purchase title insurance when buying property; sometimes old title claims resurface after an extended lapse.)
Paul Marks: "In reality, yes, an invader does not gain just title to land - but as time passes the new generations DO gain just title to the land."
How? You can only gain a just title in one of two ways -- homesteading, which doesn't apply to property (just unowned land) -- and voluntary, contractual transfer from the current owner. The latter case obviously doesn't apply as the seller does not have a just title, and thus lacks the authority to transfer ownership of the property. The only way the present residents could homestead the land would be if the real owner abandoned it, either explicitly or by omitting it from the estate as I described above.
Published: May 19, 2007 10:46 PM
On your first point Jesse I stand defeated.
I used to have books that discussed the ideas of the various tribes - but I have them no longer.
Some tribes had ideas of individual ownership, some had ideas of group ownership (many different forms of ownership), and some do indeed seem to have had no clear ideas at all. But I certainly can not remember which tribes thought what.
And of course land was contested, just as it was in preNorman Ireland with Brehon law (with its various ideas about the ownership of land) leading to endless conflicts - conflicts that continued after the comming of the Normans of course (one of the successes of the modern Republic of Ireland is that, for the first time in history, no one disputes who owns what bit of land - in spite of the fact that many of the people in the Republic of Ireland have Norman, Scottish or English names - of course the 10% of the population of the then "Free State" who were Protestant [just to complicate matters some of the Protestants really do have ancient Irish names - with the "O" at the front] at the time of its foundation tended to have problems ["we are here to help you move" is an ancient mock polite thing that groups of armed men say to farmers in Ireland - although in recent years only in the border areas of Ulster], but that is another story).
On your point about an individual having to PROVE ownership (not just say "I am from group X and group X used to live round here") or ownership staying with the current occupyer - yes I agree with you (I apologize for not saying so before).
But on your last point we differ.
Take the example of land stolen a thousand years ago.
Mr X is sitting in his home one day when there is a knock at the door.
"This house is mine" says Mr Y. "My forefather was driven from this house a thousand years ago, but he left a will leaving it to his son, who left it to his son, who left it to........ and so on down to me".
You would say "Mr Y clearly owns the house, Mr X must leave the house".
I would differ from you, but I accept that your point of view has a lot to be said for it (for example it is very clear and simple - whereas ideas that history, the lives of people spent on paticular land, gives a title are not so clear and simple).
I (like Edmund Burke - of course "Burke" is a development of a Norman name, but most of the Burkes were Catholics and even Burke's mother's people who are considered ancient Irish, in fact had a name with Norman origins "Nagle") oppose "counter confiscations" (as long as more than one generation has passed or both sides - i.e. one is dealing with people trying to "reclaim" land they have never been to, from people who were born there and never acted against anyone) as much as "confiscations". But, you have a perfect right to differ.
As you say, in practice it will not often matter. As "Mr Y" is not going to be able to show what bit of land he claims - it is likely to be vague "my ethnic group used to live around here and my direct ancestors may or may not have lived on this particular bit of land".
A claim that is too vague to convince either of us.
Published: May 21, 2007 2:38 PM
I find the entire conversation interesting, funny and ludacris. First - the Native Americans "were" the first homesteaders. Second - to judge any realistic evaluation of did they or did they not believe in passing property down through the generations is nonsensical. Just be cause we believe in titles and deeds does not mean that every culture in the world must. They believed in a member of the tribe could find the area they wished to pitch their tent and would have the right to do so and to hunt and fish and farm as necessary. They did not believe that anyone person owned a piece of the property.
To say that they must be taxed and ruled by our own society with no thought to the fact that the land was stolen from their ancestors is also ludacris. First - to be considered of Native American heritage they must be able to prove more than 1/8 Native American descent. Second - title or no the land would belong to the tribe. The people on the reservations should be allowed to live by the same laws that governed their ancestors. That means that the land belongs to the tribe and the tribal council is the only one who can rent, sell, buy or claim the property from now until the end of time. It also means that if any property, cigarette, casino, gasoline or even wage taxes could be collected it would have to be invoked and enforced by the tribal council. All monies from this sort of taxation would belong to the Native Americans through the council to benefit the entire tribe.
Now if you beg to differ with this attitude, I will claim why American history also says that they have the right to their own lands of their ancestors. First - many of the treaties were only for 100 years or other given amounts of time. Many of them have expired. Second - If we are not willing to recognize their rights by blood, then we do not recognize our own ancestors by blood. Third - The biggest proof of American belief of returning lands lost in battles was done by John F. Kennedy in returning the Gaza Strip to the Isrealis even though they had lost it in battles centuries before. And to make matters worse, that was none of our business. So, if we can stick our noses into other countries and make them return land do we have the right to claim that such rules do not apply to us.
As for toll booths outside the reservations to collect taxes, how about toll booths inside the reservation to stop traffic and recreation. It is definitely a two way street.
Yes, the entire state of New York and much of Pennsylvania and parts of New England were stolen by the forcing of treaties that are also by the way no longer valid. They ran out in the 1990's, so the tribal council does have the right to stop all white laws on their reservation and to claim back the land as there was a time limit on it and that time is now past.
Published: July 26, 2007 1:23 AM