Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

#21

Post by merpnderp »

koverstreet wrote: post #15
zrail wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher oil prices are good for the Bakken. It's not economically feasible to get at that oil at lower prices, which is one possible reason for the recent over production from the Middle East. Drive the price down low enough and the companies working in the Bakken fold, send their workers home, and it takes a long time to build back up.

But higher oil prices do drive down the use of oil in general.

Higher oil prices also drive up the price of food around the world. In a more well off economies maybe higher oil prices cause people drive a little less. In lower end economies it just means more starvation and suffering. Without a suitable replacement, artificially driving up the global price of oil is literally killing and maiming (through malnutrition) people.

Re: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

#23

Post by cloudjacker »

specialist wrote: post #20
ZoF wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious how this is socialism and why it's the 'white man' doing this; there's more than one race in our army and government is there not?

It's probably like how the Amish refer to outsiders as English. It's not literal. It's probably their short-hand for all non-Sioux (non-native) people. So don't take it personally, or pendant about it.

Hear that Canada, it's also not literal socialism so don't take it personally

Re: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

#24

Post by hammock »

Waterluvian wrote: post #13
jnordwick wrote: post #7

Tl;Dr Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time. I hope this is the start of mineral and property rights for the land. We have people living and dying because they cannot use their land productively. This is socialism people. It kills people. As a Sioux native, let us use out land white men do, collateral on loans, to build business, but y…

Can you explain what you mean by this being socialism? It doesn't appear to be the socialism I'm familiar with here in Canada.

Could it be definition 1 or 2b here? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

In this particular case he's arguing the government is appropriating private land (means of production) for third-party gain.

Re: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

#25

Post by cpursley »

Waterluvian wrote: post #13
jnordwick wrote: post #7

Tl;Dr Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time. I hope this is the start of mineral and property rights for the land. We have people living and dying because they cannot use their land productively. This is socialism people. It kills people. As a Sioux native, let us use out land white men do, collateral on loans, to build business, but y…

Can you explain what you mean by this being socialism? It doesn't appear to be the socialism I'm familiar with here in Canada.

I imagine he means that the natives/first peoples don't have full property rights like those outside of reservations have. If I understand correctly, much of the land on reservations is "communal" (communist or the extream end of "socialist"). Apparently, there's a big issue getting title to land which according to the following article, explains the abundance of mobile homes on reservations:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoppisch/2011/12/13/why-are-...

Part of the typical "bundle of rights" in property ownership is the ability to abstract natural resources (plant, animal, mineral, energy). Without true property rights and ability for land to serve as collateral, the risk of capital lending is very high. You can't finance a home, you can't invest in a manufacturing plant, you can't get a farm loan, you can't mine the land, (both due to lack of mineral rights and that no bank will loan money for the equipment).

This is why reservations are poor; same reasons socialist/communist states were/are poor: Tragedy of the commons. This type of land socialism should not be confused with "social" safety nets like health care and social security. If I were a native, I'd be pretty pissed if the "white man" were running his pipelines through my territory, ancestral or not, while I got little in return. In my opinion, the reservations should be brought under the legal jurisdiction of the United States and treated as US territories.

Also, learning about Russell Means, a Lakota libertarian activist, is worthwhile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Means

Re: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

#26

Post by toomuchtodo »

merpnderp wrote: post #21
koverstreet wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But higher oil prices do drive down the use of oil in general.

Higher oil prices also drive up the price of food around the world. In a more well off economies maybe higher oil prices cause people drive a little less. In lower end economies it just means more starvation and suffering. Without a suitable replacement, artificially driving up the global price of oil is literally killing and maiming (through malnutrition) people.

Sophie's choice: people are either going to die from climate change, or from policies making oil more expensive to consume to slow climate change.

The question is as old as time: who is going to decide which cohort dies. And the answer is the entirety with the most might/force/influence, as always (unfortunately).

Re: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

#28

Post by creshal »

mercurial wrote: post #12
jnordwick wrote: post #7

Tl;Dr Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time. I hope this is the start of mineral and property rights for the land. We have people living and dying because they cannot use their land productively. This is socialism people. It kills people. As a Sioux native, let us use out land white men do, collateral on loans, to build business, but y…

What is "socialism"?

"Something the government does I don't like"

Re: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

#29

Post by 08-15 »

e12e wrote: post #19
zrail wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil has highly inelastic demand in the short term. People need to drive to work. Goods need to be transported either by train, ship, or truck. Planes are still jam packed with people. In the long term high oil prices will modify demand because people will start buying more efficient vehicles. You can see this happening in the decade starting in 2001 because prices spiked and stayed above $3/gal for the entire decade…

Not to forget one of the most "insidious" uses/dependencies of oil: food production in general and agriculture in particular. No oil, means, as far as I know, without radical change, less (as in not enough) and (much) more expensive food. That's even before one considers transport etc.

I really wonder why farmers don't run their equipment on biodiesel or bioethanol.

(Actually, the answer is bloody obvious. Admittedly somewhat off-topic, too.)

Re: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

#30

Post by merpnderp »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26
merpnderp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher oil prices also drive up the price of food around the world. In a more well off economies maybe higher oil prices cause people drive a little less. In lower end economies it just means more starvation and suffering. Without a suitable replacement, artificially driving up the global price of oil is literally killing and maiming (through malnutrition) people.

Sophie's choice: people are either going to die from climate change, or from policies making oil more expensive to consume to slow climate change. The question is as old as time: who is going to decide which cohort dies. And the answer is the entirety with the most might/force/influence, as always (unfortunately).

The IPCC says nearly all predicted deaths will happen in the future. In a future where by all current data, the world will be a richer more capable place. The future deats are mere guestimations as only the extreme limits of hubris would attempt to accurately predict the capabilities of people 50 or 100 years from now.

Whereas the deaths from higher food prices are here and now. You could easily get on a plane and meet the people condemned to die from arbitrarily higher energy prices.

Post reply on HN