Here We Go Again

[arnisador]

And it's not like the U.K. has been provocative. From 18 Dec.:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...izabeth-Land-as-gift-for-Diamond-Jubilee.html

The new name is likely to increase tension with Argentina, already simmering because of its long-standing claim on the Falkland Islands.


Argentina does not recognise Britain's sovereignty of the British Antarctic Territory, and has a counter-claim that overlaps Britain's territory.

The Argentinian papers have been unamused. So, the U.K. made changes after the Falklands War to increase the appearance of their innocence in continuing to claim a piece of land that by every geographical measure should be part of Argentina. The should do the right thing--and turn it over to the Argentinians in a negotiated way, as they have done in the Far East.

 

[granfire]

And it's not like the U.K. has been provocative. From 18 Dec.:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...izabeth-Land-as-gift-for-Diamond-Jubilee.html



The Argentinian papers have been unamused. So, the U.K. made changes after the Falklands War to increase the appearance of their innocence in continuing to claim a piece of land that by every geographical measure should be part of Argentina. The should do the right thing--and turn it over to the Argentinians in a negotiated way, as they have done in the Far East.

geographic?

The land does not give a rip what flag flies above.

And the people are not Argentine. Have not been Argentine, and don't want to either.

What's next? Bhutan is geographically like China? Northern Ireland Irish?
Alaska Canadian?

A short history...nothing screams 'ARGENTINA' there....except, they are close.
(according to that logic, the Canaries ought to be something African, not Spain, and the Channel Islands French...)

 

[Sukerkin]

For those that have strong (if unsupportable) ideas about how the poor Argentine government is full of Angelic Light and deserve a cookie in the shape of the Falkland Islands, here is the URL for the UK Foreign Office. Feel free to talk to them about any brilliant diplomatic ideas you have:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office

Be sure to read this link first as it contains pertinent information as to the official position of the British government on the matter:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/supporting-the-falkland-islanders-right-to-self-determination

 

[GrandmasterP]

There be oil round them thar Falklands by all accounts maybe that's why Johnny Argie is sniffing round again.
He's on a hiding to nothing if he moves beyond sabre rattling though and possibly knows that.

 

[pgsmith]

For example, do you own your kidneys? Do you have a deed for them? Of course not, but you own them nonetheless. Property is an extension of rational thinking exactly akin to 2+2=4. It's abstract, but it still exists.

If that were the case, then abortions would be legal right?
You have a bizarre way of looking at things. Do you really think that if we all hold hands and sing kumbaya, everything will work out to the good? By the way, you only own your kidneys because their is someone forcing others to leave them in your body. China has a large problem right now with illegal organ harvesting. If there were no laws preventing it, someone could take you out and take your kidneys for fun and profit.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Sorry! There are so many political issues with two or more sides--I forgot that this one was the exception! I'm sure all right-thinking people will agree with you.

Maybe we should step in and help Ireland break free of British control. After all, they don't want it.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Do property rights exist in the absence of "legal" force?

No.
That was simple...

 

[Dirty Dog]

The Argentinian papers have been unamused. So, the U.K. made changes after the Falklands War to increase the appearance of their innocence in continuing to claim a piece of land that by every geographical measure should be part of Argentina. The should do the right thing--and turn it over to the Argentinians in a negotiated way, as they have done in the Far East.

Geography has nothing to do with it.
Or are you going to suggest that the US ought to turn Puerto Rico over to the Dominican Republic?
The Netherlands should turn over Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao to Venezuala?
Should we turn Alaska over to Russia?
Does Mexico get ownership ot Texas? OK, well maybe that one would be ok... (Kidding! Put down that Scarey Assault Weapon!)

 

[Tez3]

Maybe we should step in and help Ireland break free of British control. After all, they don't want it.

I think the less said about Americans helping the terrorists there the better. Look at Noraid and see what they are funding.

the argentinians have never had a claim on the Falklands, the Spanish claimed it when Argentina was one of their colonies, the French claimed it, it's a toss up whether the Dutch or the British actually found it, the British certainly explored it. The only time Argentininas had their people on the islands was when they invaded and were killing and torturing the natives ie the Falklands Islanders who are the descendants of the only settlers to have stayed there all these centruires, the Spainish having given up it's claim and left along with their settlers who were never Argentinian.

Will the US be giving up Hawaii any time soon or allowing it independence?

 

[Makalakumu]

Will the US be giving up Hawaii any time soon or allowing it independence?

Good question and I think it has similar issues with the Falkland situation. There are some key differences though. The Hawaiian Monarchy was overthrown by a group of businessmen who wanted to have the archipelago annexed by the US. The coup was organized and backed by the US, but a change in policy left the island chain in limbo for a few years. When the administration changed and foreign policy turned favorable, Hawaii was annexed and became a territory of the US. There was (and still is) a large group of people who never wanted to be part of the US.

The US government has no interest in letting Hawaiians have their own nation, however. The archipelago is too important for this government's foreign policy.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not sure about it being similiar because the only violence offered in the Falklands was by the argentininas 30 years ago. If anyone does have a prior claim to the Islands it would be Spain not Argentina, however Spain signed the Islands over to the British. The Argentinians have never had a legal or even moral claim on the Islands. the Falkland Islanders want to stay British, if that's not possible they want to be independant, the argentinians want the Falklands to be a colony, they will chuck the Islanders off and fill it with their own people. That cannot be right in anyones thinking.

 

[GrandmasterP]

No.
That was simple...

......
Property rights enshrined in statute exist in the absence of legal force.
Where would they go?
Enforcing such rights on the other hand.....

 

[Tgace]

How far back do you go to find a "rightful owner"?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dirty Dog]

......
Property rights enshrined in statute exist in the absence of legal force.
Where would they go?
Enforcing such rights on the other hand.....

No. There are no property rights without force. The statutes you mention are meaningless without the force of law behind them.

 

[ballen0351]

Tez what do the British get out of the deal? I know you said the islanders want to be british but if its costing you all a fortune and many lives you must be getting something out of it. I have no dog in this fight its Your country your free to defend any other place you want Im just curious as to the motivation. Its never a simple as were just nice people and sticking up for the little guy. Is it strategic bases and training grounds, natural resources, or something else? Id like to kick a few islands we have free.

 

[Makalakumu]

No. There are no property rights without force. The statutes you mention are meaningless without the force of law behind them.

If that is the case, then all that is required to deprive you of your property, including your life, is a change in law. Essentially, a government could order your death and you would have to accept this as a moral act. See, I don't think you realize it, but when you frame the argument for property the way you do, you are actually enshrining force as the sole arbiter of everything ethical and moral about human action. If this is what you believe, then right and wrong itself is completely dependent upon force. Rape, murder, and theft do not exist as long as you are on the right side of the gun barrel. Essentially, this is an outright endorsement of Ghengis Khan's ethical system. I would highly suggest that you take a look at your life and ask yourself if this really is the ethical system that you use to go about your daily life.

That said, I do not think that force creates property rights. I believe that force can be a reaction to property rights, but that is not the same as force creating property. This is provable in the logical sense because things like rape, murder and theft cannot occur simultaneously. For example, two people along in a room cannot rape each other. If they tried, the outcome would be something other than rape. The fact that we have this word, the fact that humans use moral language universally, supports the idea that self ownership and therefore property exists separate from force. Our language reflects human nature which is part of nature. I think that even if you removed words like rape, murder, and theft from our lexicon, you would still find this basic principle present in conscious beings. Observations of animals with lower levels of consciousness confirm this.

So, lets compare the results of these two very different ethical systems in this situation and see which one you actually agree with. If property is created through force, then there is nothing wrong with the Argentinians simply walking in and taking the Falklands despite what the people want. You cannot pass moral judgement upon them if they have the strength to hold it because they would have the monopoly on the force of law. If property exists separate from force, then the Argentinians would be committing an act that is morally wrong. They could be held responsible and there could be a chance for justice. This same comparison could be made for any situation where moral behavior is involved.

I believe that human society exists in a pre-rational state. Most people do not grasp the idea that fundamental principles exists and simply believe that force will determine the moral nature of all human action. The next step in our development as a species will be the recognition that the initiation of force IS irrational. It precludes reason by preventing men from recognizing their rational mutual self interests. This is because the initiation of force introduces a negative into any human action for at least one party. Win win, peaceful negotiations are impossible in situations where force is initiated and our society becomes a poorer and scarcer place overall.

 

[ballen0351]

If that is the case, then all that is required to deprive you of your property, including your life, is a change in law. Essentially, a government could order your death and you would have to accept this as a moral act.

They already do

See, I don't think you realize it, but when you frame the argument for property they you do, you are actually enshrining force as the sole arbiter of everything ethical and moral about human action. If this is what you believe, then right and wrong itself is completely dependent upon force. Rape, murder, and theft do not exist as long as you are on the right side of the gun barrel. Essentially, this is an outright endorsement of Ghengis Khan's ethical system. I would highly suggest that you take a look at your life and ask yourself if this really is the ethical system that you use to go about your daily life.

Thats true as well already. The right side of the gun barrel is an opinion. We clam to have the moral right in removing the taliban yet I think they view it differently. In this case the Brits claim to be on the side of the moral right yet the Args claim thats wrong. Fact is were animals no matte how smart we think we are every dispute comes down to ending by force or threat of force. Thats true no matter if your talking about a disagreement between two guys at a bar or in the court of law or two countries dipute over an island. Theres no other way to keep whats yours if someone else wants it. They will use force to remove it you must use force to keep it.

That said, I do not think that force creates property rights. I believe that force can be a reaction to property rights, but that is not the same as force creating property. This is provable in the logical sense because things like rape, murder and theft cannot occur simultaneously. For example, two people along in a room cannot rape each other. If they tried, the outcome would be something other than rape.

Sure it is Rape happens in Jail cells between two people all the time.

The fact that we have this word, the fact that humans use moral language universally, supports the idea that self ownership and therefore property exists separate from force. Our language reflects human nature which is part of nature. I think that even if you removed words like rape, murder, and theft from our lexicon, you would still find this basic principle present in conscious beings. Observations of animals with lower levels of consciousness confirm this.

Im not sure what your saying here. You have no self ownership if someone else is willing to take it from you. People are murdered everyday, woman are raped everyday.

So, lets compare the results of these two very different ethical systems in this situation and see which one you actually agree with. If property is created through force, then there is nothing wrong with the Argentinians simply walking in and taking the Falklands despite what the people want. You cannot pass moral judgement upon them if they have the strength to hold it because they would have the monopoly on the force of law. If property exists separate from force, then the Argentinians would be committing an act that is morally wrong. They could be held responsible and there could be a chance for justice. This same comparison could be made for any situation where moral behavior is involved.

Thats true to the victor goes the spoils. According to the Argentinians they are morally right to take the islands, to the Brtish they are wrong and the British are rights. Moral behavior is not universal its an opinon.

I believe that human society exists in a pre-rational state. Most people do not grasp the idea that fundamental principles exists and simply believe that force will determine the moral nature of all human action. The next step in our development as a species will be the recognition that the initiation of force IS irrational. It precludes reason by preventing men from recognizing their rational mutual self interests. This is because the initiation of force introduces a negative into any human action for at least one party. Win win, peaceful negotiations are impossible in situations where force is initiated and our society becomes a poorer and scarcer place overall.

Thats all fine and good until I come camp in your back yard and you want me gone. What do you do?

 

[granfire]

well, the problem is that the Falklands are not inhabited by Argentinians, but by descendants of British people.

So there flies Argentina's claim out the window.

And the people who live there don't want to be part of Argentina.

They have been there for a few generations now, couple hundred years....

 

[GrandmasterP]

How far back do you go to find a "rightful owner"?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

.........
Tressel tells a tale in Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.....

"get off my land"
"How is this your land?"
"This estate has been in my family since Norman times"
"so how did they get it in the first place?"
"My ancestor fought for it"
"OK then. I'll fight you for it"

 

[Makalakumu]

They already do

Then why do people seek to set limits on power?

Fact is were animals no matte how smart we think we are every dispute comes down to ending by force or threat of force.

Do you settle every dispute with violence or the threat of violence? What would you call a person who did that?

Sure it is Rape happens in Jail cells between two people all the time.

Two people cannot rape each other at the same time. If they tried, it would simply be sex. Moral language exists that reflects the universality of self ownership.

You have no self ownership if someone else is willing to take it from you. People are murdered everyday, woman are raped everyday.

The fact that someone would initiate force against you does not negate self ownership. Neither does the fact that force would be required to defend self ownership. Force is a reaction to ownership. This is why the initiation of force and the response to the initiation of force fall in separate moral categories.

Thats true to the victor goes the spoils. According to the Argentinians they are morally right to take the islands, to the British they are wrong and the British are rights. Moral behavior is not universal its an opinion.

If moral behavior is an opinion and someone decides that it's time for you to die, why would you fight back? Why train in martial arts at all?

Thats all fine and good until I come camp in your back yard and you want me gone. What do you do?

You're a good guy. I'd probably throw a BBQ.