Here We Go Again

[Makalakumu]

The Falklands people have been living there for quite a while now..does Argentina have a right to take it from them? Does the UK have the right to protect them?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

No and Yes. I don't think the UK has the duty to protect them however, but it's not really my place to make that judgement. There is nothing wrong with one group of people paying another group of people paying for protection. If they pay taxes to the UK for protection, well that arrangement isn't necessarily voluntary.

 

[Makalakumu]

No...the government enforces your property rights by force for you. Legal force. Then, if that's ignored, ultimately REAL force.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

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

 

[ballen0351]

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

They exist but are not enforced with out the threat of force

 

[Tgace]

They exist but are not enforced with out the threat of force

Yup.

What's "yours" is only yours if you have the ability to prevent someone else from taking it...or the means to punish/get compensation if it is taken. You either defend it by force...by force of law...or through ethics/religion.

That force is codified in law. You are allowed to use force to protect property. Not deadly force as a rule...untill life (vs just property) is threatened.

Animals mark out their territory and defend it...were not all that different. But people are amongst the few creatures that can respect property rights through things like concepts, or ethics. When some form of enforcement of those agreed upon ethics breaks down what do think is gonna happen?

Easy answer...check history.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

They exist but are not enforced with out the threat of force

First of all, I apologize for the thread drift, but I think this subject relates to the topic at hand. Especially, when we consider the deep philosophical underpinnings of what is happening here.

That said, I think it's important that we acknowledge that property rights exist in the absence of force. We may need to use force to ward off the initiation of force against our property rights, but that does not create property rights. Property is a rational extension of the individuals ownership of the self. Therefore, force does not create property. Force can defend property, or take it.

How does this relate to this situation? I think it gives people a different lens in which to view it. We have two groups of people who claim the "legal" right to initiate force over a piece of real estate. One group of people is more powerful than they other, therefore the "right" to that territory "belongs" to the more powerful group. Is this the mechanism we want to "bestow" property rights in perpetuity, or can we look for a more reasonable and rational alternative? What are the consequences of allowing a powerful group of people the "right" to initiate force and violate property rights? These are the larger philosophic themes that are highlighted by this situation.

 

[Tgace]

Property is a rational extension of the individuals ownership of the self.

What keeps someone else from enslaving you or killing you?

 

[Makalakumu]

What keeps someone else from enslaving you or killing you?

Force.

 

[Tgace]

...don't get me wrong, at it's root I agree with you. The "problem" with the definition of property these days is that the government seems to keep getting more and more power to TELL us what is or isn't ours. The whole idea of our Constitution was to set limits. Our politicians seem to have pushing those limits as their life mission. Usually via the commerce clause.

But back to the issue at hand. At some point you loose your right to property if you fail to enforce it. How far back should a nation/state be able to reach in their claim to property? The Falklands have been under Brit control in one way or another since the 1700's. What "right" do today's Argentinians think they have to it? Should we give back the US to the Native Americans and hie off back to where we came from? I came from here. The people currently in the Falklands came form there.

 

[pgsmith]

That said, I think it's important that we acknowledge that property rights exist in the absence of force.

That is irrational and imaginary. I own property. I do not own property through some imaginary concept. I own property because I have a deed to it which will hiold up in a court of law (force). If I did not have said deed, someone else would win the court case and kick me off of my land (force).

Concepts are wonderful things to talk about, but do not actually carry any weight in the real world. The Falkland Islands is a great example. THe people living their are the only people that have lived there. They did not displace any native peoples, and they've been living there for quite some time. However, the Argentinian government says they have no right to do so, and will force them to become Argentinians. The Islanders refused and asked Britain to defend them, which it did. So, who's acknowledging any sort of property rights, and what property rights would there be in the absence of force?

 

[Tgace]

Is this the mechanism we want to "bestow" property rights in perpetuity, or can we look for a more reasonable and rational alternative?

That's based on the premise that all humans involved will be reasonable and rational....you dont see the problem in that idea??

 

[Tez3]

First of all, I apologize for the thread drift, but I think this subject relates to the topic at hand. Especially, when we consider the deep philosophical underpinnings of what is happening here.

That said, I think it's important that we acknowledge that property rights exist in the absence of force. We may need to use force to ward off the initiation of force against our property rights, but that does not create property rights. Property is a rational extension of the individuals ownership of the self. Therefore, force does not create property. Force can defend property, or take it.

How does this relate to this situation? I think it gives people a different lens in which to view it. We have two groups of people who claim the "legal" right to initiate force over a piece of real estate. One group of people is more powerful than they other, therefore the "right" to that territory "belongs" to the more powerful group. Is this the mechanism we want to "bestow" property rights in perpetuity, or can we look for a more reasonable and rational alternative? What are the consequences of allowing a powerful group of people the "right" to initiate force and violate property rights? These are the larger philosophic themes that are highlighted by this situation.

I'm not sure who you think has taken the protery by force in this case.

so, a potted history ... the Islands were unihabited when first discovered by Europeans, the French settled there in 1764 then the English joined them in 1766. Later the Spainish attacked and threw the English off but a peace treaty meant the English came back and the Spainish left. The British authorities withdrew from there during the American Civil War but maintained 'ownership', they came back shortly afterwards to rejoin the settlers who had stayed . The Argentinians claim on the Islands actually dates to when they themselves were a colony of Spain.

The Falklands doesn't pay taxes to the UK, they pay their own to their own government. It should be noted that a small amount of Argentinians have actually moved there, settled and become Falkland Islanders giving up their Argentinian nationality.

again people seem to be ignoring what the Falkland Islanders want, most have been there for many generations, they didn't displace anyone, haven't killed anyone for the land. However the Argentinians killed and tortured islanders when they invaded on a very frail argument that the Islands were theirs. If it were anyone other than the Falklanders Islands it could have been the Dutch, the French, the Spanish or the British but not the Argentinians.


The Falklands belong to the Falkland islanders, no one else why do people find that hard to accept, that they are their own people in their own country, Britain is honour bound to defend them from invaders, we don't run the country, we don't take money from them, we just defend them, it has cost us lives and a great deal of money. If they want total independence they will get get it. As the Prime Minister says it's up to the Falkland Islanders to decide for themselves what they want and we will stand by their decisions, whats so hard about evryone else leaving them be?

The Falkland Islands is a hard country to make a living in, the Islanders have been there for centuries making the best of what's there, don't they deserve to have their wishes upheld?

 

[Makalakumu]

...don't get me wrong, at it's root I agree with you. The "problem" with the definition of property these days is that the government seems to keep getting more and more power to TELL us what is or isn't ours. The whole idea of our Constitution was to set limits. Our politicians seem to have pushing those limits as their life mission. Usually via the commerce clause.

But back to the issue at hand. At some point you loose your right to property if you fail to enforce it. How far back should a nation/state be able to reach in their claim to property? The Falklands have been under Brit control in one way or another since the 1700's. What "right" do today's Argentinians think they have to it? Should we give back the US to the Native Americans and hie off back to where we came from? I came from here. The people currently in the Falklands came form there.

We can't really go back and unravel the tangled mess of property rights, but we can use this situation to achieve some clarity about what property actually is. This is important, IMO, because we could use this clarity to avoid these situations in the future and perhaps make the world a better place. At the very least, we have a strong case for limiting the initiation for force (aka the government) in society.

I think eventually the UK is going to have to cut the Falklands loose. Maybe they can arm the Islanders to the teeth so they can give the Argentines a pause.

 

[Tez3]

We can't really go back and unravel the tangled mess of property rights, but we can use this situation to achieve some clarity about what property actually is. This is important, IMO, because we could use this clarity to avoid these situations in the future and perhaps make the world a better place. At the very least, we have a strong case for limiting the initiation for force (aka the government) in society.

I think eventually the UK is going to have to cut the Falklands loose. Maybe they can arm the Islanders to the teeth so they can give the Argentines a pause.

I really think I'm wasting my time trying to explain things here! The Falklands Islands run themselves, they have their own government, they have their own taxes, they have their own police, they have their own schools, they are not a bloody colony that we can cut loose. Which bit of the fact that the Falkland Islanders don't want to cut us loose don't you get? They are hanging on to us! In this current economic climate heavens knows we could do without keeping a garrison on there but we do because the Falkland Islanders want us to. It's their choice not ours, We honour their choice at great cost to ourselves. We get nothing from this relationship with them. There's still no oil or minerals giving any revenue so don't say it's that.

The Falklands want to stay British, do you suggest we cut their throats and leave them to the wolves to finish off? It would be in our interests to do so but we won't for as long as they want to stay British we'll have them. Our government is encouraging them to be totally independent but we'll see, it's up to the Islanders in the end.

 

[Makalakumu]

That is irrational and imaginary. I own property. I do not own property through some imaginary concept. I own property because I have a deed to it which will hold up in a court of law (force). If I did not have said deed, someone else would win the court case and kick me off of my land (force).

I disagree. I think your deed is an imaginary grant of property from an institution that claims to have the right to initiate force against you if it so chooses. That deed does nothing to protect you because it is the product of the ever changing landscape of laws that could suddenly swing against your interests. On the other hand, the concept of property is very real. 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.

Concepts are wonderful things to talk about, but do not actually carry any weight in the real world.

This is nonsense.

The Falkland Islands is a great example. THe people living their are the only people that have lived there. They did not displace any native peoples, and they've been living there for quite some time. However, the Argentinian government says they have no right to do so, and will force them to become Argentinians. The Islanders refused and asked Britain to defend them, which it did. So, who's acknowledging any sort of property rights, and what property rights would there be in the absence of force?

There is nothing wrong with one group of people asking another for protection. It would be great if we could create a world where this wasn't needed. It would be great if the Islanders could be self sufficient. I'm skeptical of any claims of altruism on the part of Britain though. I think there is more to this story.

 

[Makalakumu]

I really think I'm wasting my time trying to explain things here! The Falklands Islands run themselves, they have their own government, they have their own taxes, they have their own police, they have their own schools, they are not a bloody colony that we can cut loose. Which bit of the fact that the Falkland Islanders don't want to cut us loose don't you get? They are hanging on to us! In this current economic climate heavens knows we could do without keeping a garrison on there but we do because the Falkland Islanders want us to. It's their choice not ours, We honour their choice at great cost to ourselves. We get nothing from this relationship with them. There's still no oil or minerals giving any revenue so don't say it's that.

The Falklands want to stay British, do you suggest we cut their throats and leave them to the wolves to finish off? It would be in our interests to do so but we won't for as long as they want to stay British we'll have them. Our government is encouraging them to be totally independent but we'll see, it's up to the Islanders in the end.

I'll take your word for it then. If I had to choose between Britain and Argentina, I would pick Britain. From what you are saying, it seems like an expensive one sided relationship though.

 

[Tez3]

The conspiracy theories again, there must be more to the story, of course, dear me, it couldn't just be that the British people get really really annoyed when the Argies invade peaceful people now could it? it couldn't be that legally Britain is obliged to defend the Islands? It's as simple as that, we are obliged to do it by law, it's a territory under our protection, literally. If there's something we could get back for it I'm sure we would, there's nought for owt as they say but so far we've had nothing back sadly. The oil, gas and mineral rights thing looked good but it's not likely to have any effect for us.

 

[Makalakumu]

The conspiracy theories again...The oil, gas and mineral rights thing looked good but it's not likely to have any effect for us.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...slands-seen-tripling-u-k-reserves-energy.html

[h=1]Oil Grab in Falkland Islands Seen Tripling U.K. Reserves: Energy[/h]
Thirty years after Margaret Thatcher fought a 74-day war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, the prospect of an oil boom is reviving tensions.
Oil explorers are targeting 8.3 billion barrels in the waters around the islands this year, three times the U.K.’s reserves. Borders & Southern Petroleum Plc (BOR) will drill the Stebbing prospect next month, one of three Falkland wells that Morgan Stanley ranks among the world’s top 15 offshore prospects this year. Meanwhile, Rockhopper Exploration Plc (RKH) is seeking $2 billion from a larger oil company to develop the Sea Lion field, the islands’ first economically viable oil find.

So, yeah, I doubt any claims of altruism.

 

[Tez3]

I didn't say it was altruism, you did, I said we have a legal obligation to defend them and yes it is an expensive one sided relationship, it's the cost of our colonial past.
As for the oil and mineral rights they are still just that nothing more, the President of Argentina's husband negotiated a deal with the UK and the Falklands so that Argentina would get half of whatever there was, the President cancelled that agreement. there is a lot of very odd things happening in Argentina at the moment.
http://southernpacificreview.com/2012/03/30/what-is-argentina-doing/

 

[granfire]

I didn't say it was altruism, you did, I said we have a legal obligation to defend them and yes it is an expensive one sided relationship, it's the cost of our colonial past.
As for the oil and mineral rights they are still just that nothing more, the President of Argentina's husband negotiated a deal with the UK and the Falklands so that Argentina would get half of whatever there was, the President cancelled that agreement. there is a lot of very odd things happening in Argentina at the moment.
http://southernpacificreview.com/2012/03/30/what-is-argentina-doing/

don't cry for me Argentina?

(lots of blond blue eyed people? But of course...a lot of them immigrated after May 9th 1945 - actually before that, too)

was that country ever stable?

 

[Carol]

I didn't say it was altruism, you did, I said we have a legal obligation to defend them and yes it is an expensive one sided relationship, it's the cost of our colonial past.
As for the oil and mineral rights they are still just that nothing more, the President of Argentina's husband negotiated a deal with the UK and the Falklands so that Argentina would get half of whatever there was, the President cancelled that agreement. there is a lot of very odd things happening in Argentina at the moment.
http://southernpacificreview.com/2012/03/30/what-is-argentina-doing/

Can we say right wing or does that get us in trouble?

Nestor negotiated the agreement when he was president but CFK cancelled it when she assumed office. Nestor laid the ground work for CFK's power grabs and she's trying to drum up support for her aggressive steps by appealing to the hardcore nationalists in country. Las Islas Malvinas is not an archipelago, nor a community, nor does it consist of flesh and blood. Its a political football, a rallying point, a token, a yantra. The fact that the Faulkland Islanders themselves speak English, maintain a largely British culture, and perhaps most importantly --- want to remain part of the UK --- is being ignored by CFK and her lot.

CFK has decided to take her nationalism quest in to the international media by taking out an advert in the UK media where she writes an
open letter to David Bannon carboning the Secretary General of the UN. A lot of attention has been paid to that letter. And very little attention has been paid to this response by the Falklands themselves.

Aye, there sure is colonialism going on. But its not being initiated by the UK.