Respect Indigenous Property Rights

The Anarcho Capitalists get it.

From the Ludwig Von Mises Institute

Environmentalists and mining companies are fighting over the fate of the remote Klappan Valley in northern British Columbia. The different sides struggle for government approval of their particular plans, but almost no one fully acknowledges the property rights of the first owners of the valley, the indigenous Tahltan people.

The Tahltan have lived in and around the Klappan Valley since before there were any states at all in North America. They defended this rich territory against rival tribes, as Tahltan leaders put it, “from time immemorial, at the cost of our own blood,” long before European contact.[1] They defended it against the mercantilist Hudson’s Bay Company in the 1800s. And now they are defending it against the corporate cronies of the central government.

Over the last few decades, Canadian governments have granted licenses to numerous mining companies, allowing them to operate in Tahltan territory. The most controversial project is Shell Oil’s coal-bed methane-fracking operation. It holds the risk of rendering the valley’s water source (called the Sacred Headwaters), and the plentiful salmon-spawning grounds it supplies, unfit for life.[2]

Like everyone else, the Tahltan want to share in the wealth of the global division of labor. Most of them want some mining on their land, because they expect to benefit from jobs working in or supporting the mines.

But they also want to balance the extraction of new resources with the preservation of old ones — the rivers and lands that they have loved, protected, built campsites on, buried their dead in, and profited from materially for centuries.

After futilely objecting to several potentially destructive mining projects through various legal and political means, a group of Tahltan mounted a blockade on the road leading to their valley in July 2005. The blockade lasted 62 days, and was broken only after the arrival of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Conflict and Property

Disagreements over what should be done with any object are easy to resolve if some person or group clearly owns it. If you own a tree that you enjoy climbing, and I think it would be better used for firewood, my only choice is to convince you to chop it down and set the thing ablaze.

No matter how much I want to burn that tree, the decision remains yours. If you don’t like my offer, you can simply say no.

The anarcho-capitalist philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that "All conflicts regarding the use of any good can be avoided if only every good is privately owned, i.e., exclusively controlled by some specified individual(s) and it is always clear which thing is owned, and by whom, and which is not."

Without clear property rights, disagreements drag on and on, eventually ending up in the hands of the state, which is, as Hoppe says, “the final arbiter and judge in every case of interpersonal conflict.”[3]

And, surprise, surprise, when we’re arguing not about trees versus firewood but about gas mines versus burial grounds, the state tends to decide such conflicts in favor of whoever has enough money to bribe the bureaucrats.

By Canadian law, the Tahltan do not strictly own the valley. This is because their claim to it predates the existence of the Canadian state — and the government officials who conquered or negotiated treaties with most of the rest of Canada’s indigenous people never came into most of what is now British Columbia (BC).

In the late 1800s, it seems, the colonial government believed that BC’s “Indians” would simply give up and die out of their own racial inferiority. That didn’t happen.

Therefore, in the words of anthropologist Wade Davis, “Not a single First Nation had been defeated in battle, and by legal definition none had settled with the Crown or relinquished title to their lands.”[4]

So perhaps it’s not surprising that the Tahltan give little credence to the paper laws by which the state has tried to give away the rights to their property.

As Tahltan Erma Bourquin put it, "If there is anything happening in this land, we should be the ones who can tell them where they can and cannot go. That is why we have a voice. The land belongs to us."[5]

Read the rest at Ludwig Von Mises Institute

About Vince

I am a Tlingit, born and raised in Tlingit Country, and a proud member of the Tlingit Nation.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Respect Indigenous Property Rights

  1. Yeah, I read the whole whole article. I think the greatest hope for Cascadia giving Ottawa and Washington the boot is through real and full indigenous autonomy. I can see “Cascadia” becoming a multi-Nation political force to actualize indigenous sovereignty with no centralized authority. Canada has no legal right to B.C. (apart from treaty 8 in the NE, which is not Cascadia anyway) I think the Haida could be the right track, but there is strength in numbers if more Nations made a push together. The Okanagan have no interest in treaty talks, and my friends there are rather positive about Cascadia becoming a reality. Sure, it’s trickier for Nations under U.S. occupation, but even that treaty history is so corrupt that it could fall right along with Canadian occupation. Not to mention both governments are realistically bankrupt already. I think “tribal ownership” is the missing link in the evolution of “Classical Liberalism”, anti-state private property, etc. This is something the Lefties really don’t get.

    • Vince says:

      I can’t speak for the Washington, Oregon or B.C. tribes, but elements of my tribe have been more or less bought off with ANCSA and even with the formation of Tlingit and Haida Central Council. I can’t fault any of our leaders of those times; they were doing the best with what they had. But the consequence has been the diminished importance of our clans; which have always been the basic building block of our societies, the holders of land and resources and really the defining part of who we all were. The “Tlingit Nation” is really a collection of formerly autonomous clans. So for Alaska the trick is getting beyond the modern conception of what a “tribe” is and showing people that the old model of tribe can be relevant to our lives today; they can hold and manage resources, settle legal disputes and provide law and order if need be. Right now our “tribe” is a collection of non Native institutions: corporations, town governments, and a social service bureaucracy. There are a lot of people who have vested interests in those institutions, and they are tied to the US Government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s