Something a bit more localized

Wow. Just...wow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Leftforge is in the "We shouldn't let our little red brothers buy firewater" camp, but I am.

And if the legalization and resulting increased use of such products is clearly shown to be harmful to society in general (not just the people directly using said products) that's not your problem?

What happened to you? You used to be able to think and reason. Now you're just a mindless drone.

Stop this pathetic and transparent meme. Its disgusting.

Volpone could NEVER think and reason.

Speaking of which - I can't see anyone supporting banning alcohol sales via legal methods in this thread.

What they are saying is that its morally unethical for people to do so in this case, and that it isn't racism to say so, its a known genetic factor that's not in dispute.

Now go sit in the corner.

The state of life on reservations may have a lot to do with alcohol, but don't dismiss a quasi socialist culture of dependence that has killed the sense of enterprise that would inspire residents to do something besides drink all day. Indians that leave or try to better themselves are called apples for a reason.

To clarify, if I owned a liquor store or someplace that legally sold booze of any kind, I would sell it to anyone legally qualified to buy it. I would not in the course of planning a business set up a liquor store just outside the gates of a reservation or in an area that has an extremely high population of Indians. How does one person's (hypothetical) decision translate into "white people shouldn't sell liquor to Indians because white people know what's good for Indians better than Indians?" I'm no crusader of any kind and I sure as shit don't kid myself that I'd be helping anyone. I just wouldn't add to the problem by my own actions. As far helping the Indians in any way, from what I've seen the kind of "help" they've historically gotten from white people has done little to help them or in fact made things worse. I would rather not be a pain-in-the-ass-know-it-all-do-gooder when I think I can probably do more for them by minding my own damn business.

Why are spending more time bitching about liquor stores near reservations than we are about the actual existence of reservations in the first place?

The reservation system has hosed the Native Americans more than any booze peddler ever did.

If the reservation system didn't exist, this would be a moot point entirely.

An interesting dilemma. Short of returning all the conquered land, what would you propose? If we get rid of the reservations altogether, we would essentially force main streaming of a population that by right is a sovereign nation. At the same time, I agree that the reservation system does not seem to work in the interest of individual residents. It's not racist to make such an observation, is it?

Is it really a sovereign nation? I know that's how it's supposed to figure on paper, but in reality, that doesn't actually work.

Right, it's a flawed concept, which results in the reservation clusterfuck. So again, what is the answer? We finish killing what remains of the culture by assimilation? Or do we create some better version of sovereignty?

Yes.

We don't keep blacks in reservations (not counting Detroit) and the US certainly owed them as much as it did the various Indian tribes. Has it better for or worse for them? Yes, we have segregated cultural communities, Chinatowns and the like, even thetho Amish. But they are not sovereign nations within ours, and are now regarded as cultural hot spots in their communities.

We don't keep Indians in reservations either. They are free to leave. Many do not. Why is that?

The freebies are tough to beat.

"Harmful to society" is a highly subjective measurement.

By my standards, not allowing someone the freedom to choose is harmful to society.

If you think "perceived harm to society" should overrule individual liberty, then where does it end? If I decide to drop out of school, am I harming society by not getting educated to my full potential? If you decide to save your money, are you harming society by not spending your money and stimulating demand in the economy? If she spends 10 hours a week playing video games, is she harming society by not volunteering at the homeless shelter?

And, since there are different viewpoints on what society SHOULD be, are you willing to go along with those that say society would be better off if women stayed home? Or if open homosexuality were unlawful?

What makes "society" better depends on what your vision of "society" is.

I think society is what results from free people interacting with one another, an organic, self-organizing structure that is controlled by no one. It isn't a government function or product.

Don't tell me that drinking all day and doing nothing don't appeal to your Irish roots.

So how do you create a better version of sovereignty without Gubmint Interference?

That might make an interesting topic for a whole 'nother thread.

Not sure about other tribes, most of whom have been shuffled around until land sufficiently undesirable to whites was found on which to relocate them, but the Navajo consider their lands integral to their religious and cultural identity.

Are you of the opinion that the status quo is maintained by anything OTHER than "Gubmint" (BTW it's spelled "government") interference?

Besides, if you are advancing the notion that I am an anarchist and am 100% percent against government interference no matter what form it takes, no matter the goal, then you are railing against a strawman.

So should we start another thread, or can you discuss your solution to the Rez in this thread?

..and the moment these liquor stores stop selling alcohol to these Indians they get charged with racism. They're kind of "damned if they do and damned if they don't."

Would either option do any good?

I love how I specifically say I don't support prohibition, that I'm logically consistent in other substances such as pot, and yet the usual suspects (Volpone, Scorp, etc...) lie and try to pretend my position is the exact opposite. WTF?!

Certain people here really do have difficulty understanding simple English.

Try it and see.

Not all of us are.

I'm of the opinion that whether it is legal or not is up to the reservation, and as a quasi-sovereign entity, none of our business. And consequently that means that those selling alcohol to the Native Americans aren't guilty of anything, because what they're doing is legal under the laws of their state.

Nobody is saying what Volpone's claiming has been said. I don't think anybody disagrees with what you've just written here.

So basically, the needs of the many should always be overruled in favour of the freedom of the individual, and you justify this with the slippery slope argument?

Many vs. One is a useless dichotomy in the context of rights in a society. "Many" is composed of individual, so nothing that subverts individual rights can be for the good of the "Many".

What about the right of an individual to shit in the local water supply?

No individual exists in a vacuum.

Easily violates the rights of his neighbors.

If you're attempting some "economy of scale" bullshit where it's worse to violate the rights of 100 people than it is that of one, you will get no traction with me.