1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5678/living-on-the-reservation/

Living on the Reservation

September 26, 2006 by

During a cross-country trip I took in early June, I drove past a number of Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico, and I must say that the sight was not exactly uplifting. I could see hundreds of tumble-down shacks and old trailers located on hillsides, and none of them were inviting places to live. It was obvious then that I was seeing something akin to a Third World scene with hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people living in great poverty. So it is whenever government is in full control. FULL ARTICLE

{ 42 comments }

David Spellman September 26, 2006 at 12:37 pm

In contrast to the grinding poverty and haplessness evident in Western Indian Reservations, there are Indian tribes who are quite successful at educating their children and making their way in the world. The difference is that they pursue extra-governmental strategies to improve their nations. But you don’t hear about them because, like many Asian minorities, they don’t have the social problems or suffer from poverty. For some reason, the government and media would prefer not to even acknowledge their existence, let alone promote their example. There are exceptions to every group that suffers stereotypical problems, but the powers that be prefer to sweep them under the carpet.

ddp September 26, 2006 at 12:44 pm

One point I’d make is that the senselessness of the reservation system continues, in part, because Native American tribes seem to want it to continue for reasons that are not solely attributable to the socialist mentality your article addresses. That attitude is certainly present in males 18-25, yet there is similarly a laudable pride and respect for the land and tradition that emerges in the older population. It’s not that much of a stretch to suggest that your average American consumer, wholly obsessed with material goods, wealth, fame, and status, is in a real sense the antithesis of the Native American ideal. I think the irony (and tragedy) is that while it’s clear which is favored, were the Native American customs and sensibilities more integrated into US society, we’d probably be in a much better position with respect to our foreign relations and to the environment. I do think it’s time to eliminate the reservation system but I think the least we can do is leave it up to them to decide when (or if) that happens. So in that sense I think your coupling this to Katrina and urban blight is a somewhat misleading analogy.

Another point I’d make is that the profound sadness I’ve experienced visiting our reservations is nearly unique to that experience and not solely a function of the poverty itself. There are plenty of places I’ve been to (sub-saharan Africa, northern Africa, the Middle East, Laos, Cambodia, India, China) that are as poor or poorer and significantly more disadvantaged in nearly every sense, yet still retain a measure of hope and spirit that’s simply not present on our reservations. I think whatever it is that causes this is evidence of something that transcends a singular cause and thus demands a more complex explanation.

Nonetheless, I agree with the gist of your article and I think you make good points about lessons we should learn from Katrina.

CAITM September 26, 2006 at 12:52 pm

(Wow, no one wants to touch this one!)

Socialism and wellfare statism should be seen as only the last step in the destruction of both Native Americans and the descendents of the freed slaves.
People in libertarian and conservative circles tend to look at people on the dole and surmise that if they just quit being lazy and taking handouts they’d improve their lot.
But Where Prior aggression, in the form of genocide or slavery, has irreversably altered or destroyed entire peoples. Merely withdrawing the dole will not suffice. It’s not a subsidy but the ineffectual (because it’s collective) restitution to the collective victims by the collective beneficiaries of their victimization.

Reactionary September 26, 2006 at 1:05 pm

CAITM,

Since the dole is available to all, an objective look at welfare begs the question of why it affects some groups disproportionately.

Presumably, your alternative to collective, i.e., public, efforts at restitution in the form of civil rights and welfare would be private collection efforts in which the government played no role. Such efforts would undoubtedly meet resistance.

CAITM September 26, 2006 at 1:23 pm

Indeed. Justice always meets resistance, it seems, in proportion to the severity of the grievance. Meanwhile, many conservatives and so-called libertarians rail indignantly about cultural destruction under a supposed tsunami of illegal immigration. They act as if they sprung from the ground like the Athenians of Mythology

hard return ¶ September 26, 2006 at 2:24 pm

There is some insightful reading at Joint Occasional Papers on Native Affairs. If I remember not only does some of their research NOT call for more tax money, but it highlights the link of genuine autonomy and self-determinism with economic development.

http://www.jopna.net/

It’s a joint venture of Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development and the Native Nations Inst. at U of AZ.

Ty September 26, 2006 at 3:47 pm

Why did you jus relate Native Americans to the Katrina disaster? And why did you elaborate on the poor sections of the Native Reservations? Have you not seen them up close? For there is an undescribable beauty in the people, their language for example is one of them. I’ll bet you just drove on through and never stopped to chat with the people and see the sites. I’ve seen hard-core bikers cry when they saw the real beauty beyond the barb-wire fences. There’s no major city that can compare to the freedom and beauty of wide open spaces. We are what we are,and some of us are infiltrating your society because we seek higher learning. Hello Harvard! We are not your typical Native Americans anymore.
What you see on the T.V. screen is not who we are but what you make of us.

Francisco Torres September 26, 2006 at 4:24 pm

People in libertarian and conservative circles tend to look at people on the dole and surmise that if they just quit being lazy and taking handouts they’d improve their lot.

No, we surmize that if the government stopped giving handouts, people would find more productive alternatives.


But Where Prior aggression, in the form of genocide or slavery, has irreversably altered or destroyed entire peoples.

You mean they are born without hands and brains?

Merely withdrawing the dole will not suffice. It’s not a subsidy but the ineffectual (because it’s collective) restitution to the collective victims by the collective beneficiaries of their victimization.

I wonder then what kind of restitution would it be for the white folk receiving welfare. Were they victimized as well?

We also seem to have a new species of humans – Homo Victimae. They are a delicate species, so much so they need restitution in order to survive.

CAITM September 26, 2006 at 4:51 pm

Mr. Torres,

“No, we surmize that if the government stopped giving handouts, people would find more productive alternatives.”

Indeed they will. that I don’t dispute…but it’s besides the point. Blacks and native americans are where they are beacause Europeans used force to put them there (the ones that survived in the case of the Indians) In the case of blacks, the land they worked should have reverted to their Control upon emancipation. For Native americans. I don’t knwo

As for Whites on welfare? See my sock puppet alter-ego (Irate Creole) on the Immigration debate started by Jeff Tucker. My heart doesn’t bleed for white trash, as they are where they are because they want to be there.

Jacob Steelman September 26, 2006 at 4:52 pm

The American politicians and bureaucrats have done an excellent job of hiding the truth of their failures from the vast majority of the American people. As William Anderson correctly points out – one only need visit an American Indian reservation in the West to see the results of socialism. The reality is quietly kept from the general populace.

Katrina’s aftermath had high visibility – so rather than admit the catastrophe was the inevitable result of socialism the finger pointing began “if only the government had done this differently” or “if only the government had responded more urgently”. This assumes that government was the proper vehicle to fix the problem in the first place. End of discussion for the vast majority notwithstanding all the information to the contrary by libertarians, Austrians, etc. Unfortunately “bull—- baffles brains” and the politicians and bureaucrats continue to perform amazingly well in keeping the truth hidden from the American people.

Jacob Steelman September 26, 2006 at 5:14 pm

Perhaps I can provide some insight on the matter of the dole. I am an American ex-pat living in Australia where living on the dole is well known. People living on the dole are not necessarily lazy – it is an extra pay check. Many who are on the dole work for cash-in-hand at one or two jobs in the informal or underground tax free economy. When offered an opportunity to work at a job in the formal economy they refuse – “I have to care for my kids.”, “It is too far for me to commute and I do not have a car.” “I have to go to the medical centre.” etc. Despite the threat of government investigators and dubbing in by a neighbor and offers of training by the government those on the dole continue. The only thing that will stop this system is to stop the dole.

Nick Bradley September 26, 2006 at 6:09 pm

David Spellman,

These well-off tribes that run casinos profit because of an arbitrary ban on a victimless crime by the state. In the absence of a government-created shortage in areas wher ecasinos can operate, these tribes would be as poor and destitute as all others.

In addition, tribes that run casinos, successfully, operate near urban areas. But most natives live on reservations in rural areas in the Dakotas, Arizona, and New Mexico.

Nick Bradley September 26, 2006 at 6:13 pm

So what is the proper libertarian position on Indian Reservations:

1. Status-quo

2. Eliminate reservations and their semi-autonomous status

3. Cut funding and give them full autonomy

Ohhh Henry September 26, 2006 at 8:03 pm

I find reservations to be a fine illustration of socialism in action. The high levels of government spending, universal “free” social programs, the communal ownership of nearly everything, and the weak to non-existent private property rights are what our home-grown, social-democratic politicians and activists wish to impose on the entire country (or through the United Nations to the entire world). The extent to which they have enjoyed success in imposing these policies on Indians is the same extent to which Indians find themselves unemployed, impoverished, sick and drug-addicted.

New Orleans is now a kind of Indian reservation – because of its alleged historic and cultural value, because many of its inhabitants are an ethnic minority and because it is judged to be so unfortunate, a crack has been opened into which a large wedge of government intervention can be inserted.

The Indian reservation syndrome is very common. Here in Canada we have actual Indian reservations (which were supposedly used by South African apartheid-era politicians as the models for the black homelands they created), plus three northern territories which are administered like gigantic reservations (socialist money pits, every one of ‘em), plus by federal decree 8 out of the 10 full-fledged provinces are deemed to be “have not” provinces and therefore have their provincially-run welfare programs topped up with billions of dollars of federal subsidies. It is the belief that each of these regions is somehow “special”, in some linguistic, ethnic or geographical terms, which is used as the excuse for herding the inhabitants into gigantic welfare reservations. From a distance it is very easy to see that these reservations are really nothing but vote farms.

Another instance of this syndrome: once I had a chat with a business colleague, a very successful salesman, from Berlin. To my surprise, I learned that he had been born and raised in East Berlin. He told me that despite the fact that West Germany was a more economically free nation, West Berliners as a whole had done very poorly after the unification with East Germany. Why? Because when West Berlin was isolated from the rest of Germany, it was considered so politically important to maintain a grip on the city, that the West Germany government had literally showered the city with government spending and welfare programs. East Berlin, although it was the heart of a communist country, attracted the most well-educated, ambitious and competitive people in the country. I gather that after unification these former employees of the DDR were put out of work and thus were finally able to use their many talents in the business of serving people instead of ruling them – whereas West Berliners were probably able to use their votes to keep welfare coming their way for quite a while after unification. Maybe they can keep the welfare coming forever – or at least until either their democracy or their central bank collapses.

Vedran Vuk September 26, 2006 at 8:33 pm

I just can’t get enough of this line:

“the Bush Administration seems determined to make the Clinton Administration look like a collection of anarchists”

Another great piece by William Anderson!

CAITM September 26, 2006 at 9:16 pm

Well, Nick (Hey, Mr.”let’s build a wall”) you should really look at who is subsidizing whom. the victim or the murderous kidnapping robber who lets a few of his victims live (after 1890, at least) and feeds them a little from the profit of the stolen land and recources.

And don’t lecture me about the brutality of history. At least a few colonists in 17th Century NE knew it was wrong to IMMIGRATE somwhere, take other people’s land and kill them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)

I guess the Algonquians, the Pequot, Narragansetts, Mohawks and Iroquois just needed better immigration controls, didn’t they, Nick?

CAITM September 26, 2006 at 9:42 pm

The Point I’m getting at is that the welfare state givaways to the Native Americans might have something to do with the fact that. umm, well, we had pretty much liquidated them Stalin-style? And maybe, our the parents of the Lost Generation felt guilty about it as the 20th Century began (think Turner thesis, frontier Nostalgia, Oh and wounded Knee, the 19th Century’s Waco Massacre, was in living memory)

MikeE September 26, 2006 at 11:22 pm

Excuse me if not making sense.. this is a perspective from the other side of the world. I’m based in NZ but this reminded me of a presentation at the Centre for Independent Studies Liberty and Society Conference by Warren Mundine a well known Aboriginal Leader in Australia.

One thing he mentioned was the concept of inalienable title on aboriginal reservations. Essentially noone owned the land, except the collective. This created major problems as all the housing was owned buy the state as was the land, yet all their jobs (some of which were well paying) were based on the reservation.

There were no shops, no commerce, hell even the police stations were squatting on the land. Everythng *had* to be provided by the government – there was no choice, to build on the land would be illegal and they could not use the land as security for finance.

All of which built dependancy.

His answer to the aboriginal problem in australia – secure property rights for aboriginals over aboriginal land.

It was refreshing. I’ll try and blog the presentation when I get home tonight – I’ve been meaning to do it for 2 weeks since I got back from aussie. Was fascinating and completely sensible.

adi September 27, 2006 at 2:50 am

We libertarians dont believe that there is a distributive justice, but is there retributive justice so that things wrongly taken can be returned to their (rightful) owner ?

This CAITM fellow seems to think that those who benefitted from the questionable methods of conquest of west can now identified and those who suffered can also identified.

As an individual can I be held responsible from something which my (supposed) ancestors did ? This kind of thinking is too collectivistic and it forgots that people are individuals not necesserily part of any collective.

TokyoTom September 27, 2006 at 3:22 am

Mr. Anderson, this is an interesting an insightful piece and correctly assails the welfare society aspects of Indian reservations and NOLA.

However, you and other commenters here surprisingly fail to note that the most fundamental factor underlying the impoverishment on reservations is the simple fact that there is very little fee simple land ownership on reservations.

Where land is not individually owned and cannot be use as collateral, economic develoment is darn near impossible.

Much work has been done on Native American reservation issues over the years by the free-market/property rights environmentalists at PERC in Bozeman, led by Terry Anderson, who has written a couple of books on this. PERC’s entire June 2006 issue is devoted to this topic: http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=804

A quick summary of PERC’s conclusions are here:
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096413239

BTW, I think that your analysis of NOLA may be correct as to an urban reservation analysis, but clearly that’s not the only area of federal government responsibility. The ACOE built, maintained and managed the levies that prevent the Mississippi’s silt from building up the protective delta, created an appearance of protection that provided opportunities for developers but gave the local property owners no control over any aspect of the levies.

TT

Paul Marks September 27, 2006 at 6:00 am

When James Watt attacked the statism of the Federal government for what it had done to Native Americans the media accused him of being a racist “bigot” (when the idea that many Indians [as we used to call Native Americans] were poor because of someone racial factor was exactly what he was attacking).

And when government statism (at local, State and Federal) is shown to fail by Katrinia, the media’s darling Paul Krugman blaims free market ideas.

It is a pity that there is no way to get the truth to most people (who are not in the habit of reading blogs). It would be nice if Fox news was really the hard core free market alternative television news station that the left claim it is – but, of course, it is not. So Fox rarely allows the opposition to such so called “economists” as Paul Krugman (and the rest of the academic establishment) to speak to the people.

CATIM September 27, 2006 at 8:03 am

No, Adi. I don’t “forget that Individuals are not part of a collective.”
However, If you don’t think that you benefit from the past actions your forebearers, good and evil deeds resulting in gain, then, by your reasonning we have no formal claim on that which they might hand down to us in the way of accumulated weath. Nor can you pass down any assets you gain to your descendents.
If my grandfather had fraudulantly aquired all assets from yours, leaving your family destitute for the next two generations, I’d feel guilty and send you a monthly check, lest you get take hold of what you are owed by force.
Yes, we do benefit from the I’ll gotten gains of those before us, every bit as much one who recies stolen property from a burglar

CATIM September 27, 2006 at 8:17 am

Furthermore, you wouldn’t have gone to a Soviet Labor Camp in Siberia, filled with deported Kulaks and Ukranian “petty Bourgeoisie” and say to the prisoners “My, look what socialism has done to you! it’s because we subsidize you by continuing to feed you!”

Reactionary September 27, 2006 at 8:37 am

CATIM,

The history of mankind is conquest. Following your victimology to its conclusion, it will turn out that everybody owes everybody so the status quo is as good an outcome as any. But if you really think somebody somewhere should be getting out the checkbook, let’s start with the European monarchs and the theft of their kingdoms. Then we can consider the claims of the Southern planters, who were forced to relinquish slaves for which they paid good money at market value.

In all honesty, how far do you want to go down this road? It seems increasingly that the disparate peoples who constitute the United States abide each other only because the federal government tells them to.

CAITM September 27, 2006 at 9:00 am

Reactionary,

Your rite and it’s honestly not my intention to grandly rectify this situation. However when people see Native Americans Living much the same way as the trashy white people of Livingston Parish in Louisiana, they incorrectly assume it’s for the same reason. This is the ahistorical mentality that wakes up in a new world every day. coupled with hypocritical self-justification and abiltiy to compartmentalize conflicting facts, it renders those posessed of it insufferably neurotic.

CAITM September 27, 2006 at 9:03 am

My apologies, I meant to say “compartmentalize conflicting assertions”

Francisco Torres September 27, 2006 at 10:06 am

Blacks and native americans are where they are beacause Europeans used force to put them there (the ones that survived in the case of the Indians) In the case of blacks, the land they worked should have reverted to their Control upon emancipation.

CAITM, the problem lies in your assertion that people whose ANCESTORS were victimized need restitution, as if otherwise they could not live. SOME Black Americans and Natives are not in a state of poverty because of slavery or slaughter but because of dependancy on a system created, supposedly, to help them. The people that suffered are all DEAD. Given the economic choice of receiving a hand-out and staying home, or going to work, some people will decide to put themselves on the dole.


As for Whites on welfare? See my sock puppet alter-ego (Irate Creole) on the Immigration debate started by Jeff Tucker. My heart doesn’t bleed for white trash, as they are where they are because they want to be there.

So some whites depend on welfare because they want to (implying the capacity of making rational choices), but Black Americans and Native Americans depend on it because their ancestors were victimized (implying an automatic response)?

Do you think Black Americans and Native Americans are perfectly capable of making a rational choice and deciding to accept handouts? If so, would you not agree that they would ALSO want to be in the same situation as some of those White Americans? Would not that imply that they decide for themselves, the victimization of their ancestry notwithstanding?

CATIM September 27, 2006 at 10:41 am

Help them? the reservation system/perpertual dole was never to them. It was to help the Whites! subisdies to Indians date back to the 1800s-not the 1930s or the 1960s. It was meant to bribe them to stop resisting; to quit the gureilla war. And it worked! That they live in poverty is no indication of failure, sucess was then defined as no more Little Big Horns!

Francisco Torres September 27, 2006 at 10:48 am

Yes, well, CATIM, this is 2006. I still wonder if you think Native Americans are incapable of making rational choices because of ancestry-victimization. I prefer to think they are perfectly rational and intelligent human beings making rational, economic choices (not the best choices, but choices nevertheless), regardless of what some dead people did in the past, but that is just me . . .

CAITM September 27, 2006 at 1:31 pm

Well, Indeed they are. They’re making the rational choice to preserve they’re identity by staying on the rez. I’m not saying that they CAN’T engadge in productive enterprise, I’m just explaining why they DON’T. And most of it has to do with “Some dead people in the past.” Funny, those dead people in the past are easily dismissed when your side won.

They’re there on the rez because the the alternative for their ancestors was death. They now could travel anywhere seek occupation in greater economy. However, stay there to preserve their culture.

Reactionary September 27, 2006 at 2:08 pm

” They now could travel anywhere seek occupation in greater economy. However, stay there to preserve their culture.”

Unfortunately that culture was a brutal hunter-gatherer existence for which most modern Indians lack the desire much less the skills. At this point the reservations should be dissolved and fee simple titles granted to the individual residents. The Jews, Amish, Mennonites et al. have successfully maintained their ethnic and cultural identity while integrating into American society and American Indians could do the same thing. In fact, I’d argue that the subsidized existence of the reservations is actually perverting American Indian culture at this point.

CAITM September 27, 2006 at 2:25 pm

I’ll Second that, Reactionarry. Nothin perverts a culture thile the good ole dole. However, the Jewish, Amish and other communities that maintain their identity by living togeather were never sovereign entities, with which the Federal Goverment once had to deal with by treaty. Their status roughly comparable to that of the Defeated South Circa 1865-1877. Remove the dole, but grant them autonomy and the right to draft their own constitution. Eh, better give them dual citizenship or chracters like that Nick Bradley will want to build a wall around every reservation :p

Francisco Torres September 27, 2006 at 2:51 pm

Well, Indeed they are. They’re making the rational choice to preserve [their] identity by staying on the re[servation]. I’m not saying that they CAN’T engage in productive enterprise, I’m just explaining why they DON’T.

But CAITM, the explanation makes no sense – you are basically saying that people choose to stay in a reservation purely (or mostly) because of what happened to their ancestors. Is it not that a description of pure masochism?

Funny, those dead people in the past are easily dismissed when your side won.

Funny thing to say to a Mexican, but I will let it pass.


They’re there on the rez because the alternative for their ancestors was death.

Excuse me – those ancestors are ALREADY dead! The current, living natives have choices. The contention here is that they are making an economic choice due to the presence of a subsidy by the government, a subsidy that generates an incentive for not working. This is true whether your ancestors were wiped out by 30-30 carbines or brought in chains or were drunkards who enlisted unwittingly into the Royal Navy.


They now could travel anywhere seek occupation in greater economy. However, stay there to preserve their culture.

That is absurd – culture is information and that is not dependant on which coordinates you occupy on the Earth. Again it would show a great deal of irrationality on the part of an entire people to keep suffering colletively just because they want to “preserve” their culture – it simply makes no sense. I believe the answer has nothing to do with such romantic notions.

Reactionary September 27, 2006 at 2:52 pm

Well turnabout is fair play. After all, should I be allowed to move on to a reservation and open a McDonald’s and a liquor store?

But back to the point. Reservations already enjoy a good degree of autonomy and the results are generally tragic. I agree that a treaty is a treaty but I don’t think the reservations are capable of an autarchic existence that meets the standards of civil society. God bless those who try in any event.

CATIM September 27, 2006 at 3:55 pm

Mr. Torres,

Ok well, ya got me. In theory, being a member of a defeated (and almost exterminated race) does not, in fact doom an individual to poverty.

“culture is information and that is not dependant on which coordinates you occupy on the Earth. Again it would show a great deal of irrationality on the part of an entire people to keep suffering colletively just because they want to “preserve” their culture – it simply makes no sense. I believe the answer has nothing to do with such romantic notions.”

But here is where you are wrong. anywhere you live, the majority expects you to conform to THEIR CULTURE, i.e. act like a WASP.

Francisco Torres September 27, 2006 at 5:20 pm

Ok well, ya got me. In theory, being a member of a defeated (and almost exterminated race) does not, in fact doom an individual to poverty.

No, it does not. If that was the case, then the Paraguayans would still be living in abject poverty – they were utterly defeated in the War of The Triple Alliance in 1870, the male population having being reduced to a few tens of thousands. However, even with such slaughter, Paraguayan people are still resourceful and hard working. Thus, is not the case that history dooms an individual to poverty.

anywhere you live, the majority expects you to conform to THEIR CULTURE, i.e. act like a WASP.

Well, even with pressure from other individuals, following someone else’s customs is a matter of choice. I believe you happen to be convinced of your “victimized = poor” explanation and want not to consider other, more plausible explanations.

TokyoTom September 27, 2006 at 10:42 pm

Francisco:

“it would show a great deal of irrationality on the part of an entire people to keep suffering colletively just because they want to “preserve” their culture – it simply makes no sense.”

I agree completely. Did you not notice that I was trying to make almost exactly the same point on another thread?

So why do Native Americans continue to choose to accept their present condition? I suggest that it is (i) because they do not fully understand that its institutional underpinnings lie in a screwed up property rights system (common property) – as Terry Anderson and PERC explain so well, (ii) that it is difficult to deliberately reform common property systems (in the past, “reform” as taken the form of homesteading), and (iii) even with an understanding, it may be the rationale choice of individuals not to invest their own time and energy to reform a system when the benefit they receive will be diffused across all, so that on a cost-benefit basis, such efforts may be a waste.

Some might say the same thing about my comments on environmentla topics for example. Perhaps I have a screw loose.

TT

Francisco Torres September 28, 2006 at 11:45 am

Some might say the same thing about my comments on environmentla topics for example. Perhaps I have a screw loose.

Since CLIMATE is NOT property, nor is it a good or a resource, the analogy you are implying with the common property as happens on Native American reservations does not translate well. Land IS homesteadable, and I believe Native Americans are intelligent enough to know that a private property system is much better to manage resources than a commons. However, the problem is one of economic dependancy on government handouts and not one of public commons.

CAITM September 28, 2006 at 2:32 pm

Before 1838, Indians in the Southwest had developed a highly sophisticated society,complete with private property. However, when it can be demonstrated that one holds one’s property only at the whim of the majority (as the Cherokee found out during Jackson’s administration) it tends to raise time preferance.

Look, Both urban African American individuals and the Native Americans on the rez could both maximze their standard of living and Q of L by totally abandoning government assistance and by securing private property. I’d guess that they’d catch up to the population at large within a decade. But what good does that do when one’s property is always subject to seizure and redistribution to those with greater lobbying power.

And yes, people generally do have to stick togeather to preserve their identity.

CAITM September 28, 2006 at 4:09 pm

Correction: Southeast

DiziFilm July 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Admin nice post,completey very very good.

asool December 1, 2010 at 1:44 pm

Description: سحرني-منتدى-منتديات-سحرني-سحربنت-سحر-منتديات العاب

Reciprocal URL: http://www.s7rn.com/vb

Your Business Details: صور للتصميم- برامج – العاب – توبيك -توبيكات صور مسن- بلاك بيري- ايفون -ر يمكسات اغاني -البومات جديده – سكرابرز -استايلات فوتشوب-اكشن-خامات-رواياتtxt-مخلصات مواد-محاضرات-تعبير- <~ والي يبي يضيف يضيف

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: