Natives got treaties, colonists got a constitution. Terms confuse concepts once again. An organization having physical dominance over a region formed an agreement with the people living in that region. This is done to maintain authority – powers that be agree to certain things and in return the people don’t revolt. This relationship is absolutely no different whether you are native or not, whether your agreement is a treaty or a constitution.
Ah but the application of these agreements has been much different, hence the skewing of terminology. Natives quite rightly maintain a feeling of externalization from the Canadian government. As should be the case with any agreement. At the end of the day an agreement posits 2 differing sides, if you’re on one, you can’t be on the other.
Those of us living under a constitutional agreement have the false belief that we’re somehow owners of our constitution or that somehow we live on both sides of the agreement. You can’t make an agreement with yourself, that isn’t an agreement. A constitution is an agreement between rulers and citizens. The means by which a ruler receives his office is also irrelevant. When we vote (if you believe the system is actually democratic- haha), we are forming consensus about who we want to sit on the other side of the bargaining table. But make no mistake, elected officials are no longer members of this population. They are completely externalized from us as is necessitated by the fact that they hold an agreement with us. They can’t BE the people if they hold an agreement with the people.
This is why govs take a different approach to treaty vs constitutional issues. The concept is identical, but the constitutional crowd is full of suckers who allow their agreement to be changed at will. Meaning there really isn’t any agreement at all, just pandering.
This is also why I cringe when people say that Natives have ‘special rights’. There’s nothing special about it, its an agreement – we have one too. Its like any other contract you can imagine. We’ve also got an incredible amount of power from our agreement if we wanted it. Canada is constituted on the Magna Carta giving us all sorts of rights hardly any of us bother to assert. The problem isn’t a lack of written rights, its that we’re too lazy or stupid to insist the other side of the table maintains their obligations to our contract.
How is this relevant to Bitcoin? Well if we can successfully decentralize the monetary system, much of what we want from the other side of the bargain table dissolves. We in so many ways just won’t need government anymore, we can make them redundant. If they no longer have things we want, there is not reason to form agreements – why would you enter an agreement with someone who has nothing to offer you? … At which point they can go ahead and do whatever they like with their silly constitutions and treaties. Here’s a suggestion: roll it into a ball and cram it up your elitist arses, we don’t need to sit at this crooked table anymore.
Oh and buy Mazacoin, MZC. National sovereign currency of the Lakota people (Sioux)!