Here We Go Again

[ballen0351]

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....

We got that part yet Im sure the Argentinians tell a different tale.

 

[Makalakumu]

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....

This is why the nature of property rights is so important to this discussion. I think the correct decision depends on the nature of property.

 

[ballen0351]

Then why do people seek to set limits on power?

Because we know at somepoint maybe not tomorrow but someday the guns will turn on us.

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

well kinda Im the violent part of Morals. The politicians make the laws based on the peoples morals, the courts decide if the laws are ok and just and then they send us out to enforce them. Force is even in the word

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.

Thats true but in that case your willfullly giving someone permission to "enter" your um property. So your waiving your property rights. It can still be taken without permission is the point Im making. Just because you tell someone no they can still do it unless you meet there force with equal or more force to stop them

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.

But your question was can you have one without the other. Your right to self ownership dont mean a whole lot if your dead. Someone forfeited your self ownership with force.

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?

Becuase my opinon (morals) is different then then his. Its of my opinon that its wrong to kill me so I shall defend myself.
Morals are an opinion something you find ok I may find immoral. Take say Gay Marriage some say its ok others are 100% against it. Its all in how you see the world its your opinion. Or 9-11 the US majority thought the act of crashing planes into buildings killing 1000's was immoral yet the attackers were fighting a just and moral holy war against us. Its all perspective. Majority rules.

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

I may take you up on that my friend I love me some good BBQ

 

[Makalakumu]

Because we know at some point maybe not tomorrow but someday the guns will turn on us.

Why is this a bad thing? Why resist at all?

well kinda I'm the violent part of Morals. The politicians make the laws based on the peoples morals, the courts decide if the laws are ok and just and then they send us out to enforce them. Force is even in the word

Imagine that you have a dispute with your wife. Do you settle that dispute with violence or the threat of violence? What would you call someone who settled disputes with their spouse with violence or the threat of violence? Why?

That's true but in that case your willfullly giving someone permission to "enter" your um property. So your waiving your property rights. It can still be taken without permission is the point Im making. Just because you tell someone no they can still do it unless you meet there force with equal or more force to stop them

My point is that something like rape cannot exist if two people rape each other at the same time. What this indicates is that in order for rape to exist, one person must want it and another person must NOT want it. Why would a person NOT want to be raped? The answer is property rights. The fact that someone can still rape does not erase someone else's property rights.

But your question was can you have one without the other. Your right to self ownership dont mean a whole lot if your dead. Someone forfeited your self ownership with force.

I think the above quote deals with this situation as well. Property rights are not extinguished simply become someone can initiate force against you. If they were, there would be no such thing as justice.

Becuase my opinon (morals) is different then then his. Its of my opinon that its wrong to kill me so I shall defend myself. Morals are an opinion something you find ok I may find immoral. Take say Gay Marriage some say its ok others are 100% against it. Its all in how you see the world its your opinion. Or 9-11 the US majority thought the act of crashing planes into buildings killing 1000's was immoral yet the attackers were fighting a just and moral holy war against us. Its all perspective. Majority rules.

Why is the "opinion" that you should defend your life worth dying for? Do you have other principles that you would stake your life upon? Why? Do you need to defend yourself from gay marriage? Do you need to defend yourself against people peacefully smoking dope? See, somethings that people call moral really are opinions. Other things stand upon reasonable and rational principles that are not opinions.

I may take you up on that my friend I love me some good BBQ

:drinkbeer

 

[granfire]

We got that part yet Im sure the Argentinians tell a different tale.

well, considering the blond, blue eyed people....there were claims in the past in regard to land for reasons of 'historical' possessions....some actually with the native people in mind......
In retrospect, the motives were not as pure....but it was easier to see in the firelight as the world was on fire....

 

[Tgace]

You really have nothing but a concept of "property" keeping someone from taking the car parked in your driveway. Sniff all the unicorn farts ya want about "natural rights" if someone wants to take it you either have to stop them or have the government (law) stop them...by force or via "Justice" and punishment after the fact. Without force your "property" means nothing.

The founding fathers said the creator endowed us with "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...we have to do what we can to keep them.

 

[Dirty Dog]

If that is the case, then all that is required to deprive you of your property, including your life, is a change in law.

That is correct. If someone manages to pass a law that say bald headed one eyed men can be shot on sight, I'd be in trouble.

Essentially, a government could order your death and you would have to accept this as a moral act.

I think I see the problem. You don't understand the difference between legal and moral.

In the case of the Falkland Islands, Argentina has neither a legal or moral claim.

 

[Makalakumu]

You really have nothing but a concept of "property" keeping someone from taking the car parked in your driveway. Sniff all the unicorn farts ya want about "natural rights" if someone wants to take it you either have to stop them or have the government (law) stop them...by force or via "Justice" and punishment after the fact. Without force your "property" means nothing.

The founding fathers said the creator endowed us with "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...we have to do what we can to keep them.

For most of us here, the "concept" of property is enough to deter us from simply taking it. For the few human predators that would simply take it...they may need a little "pursuasion" otherwise. That does not invalidate property rights though. Property exists independently of ability to use force. Force is a response to property.

 

[Carol]

I'm in it for the BBQ

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm in it for the BBQ

We'll hit the beach and i'll bring my boards!

 

[Makalakumu]

That is correct. If someone manages to pass a law that say bald headed one eyed men can be shot on sight, I'd be in trouble.



I think I see the problem. You don't understand the difference between legal and moral.

In the case of the Falkland Islands, Argentina has neither a legal or moral claim.

I think i have a pretty good grasp of the concepts of legal, moral, and ethical. That said, imagine if Argentina simply takes the Falklands and has the strength to fight off the UK claim. Is that wrong?

 

[granfire]

I think i have a pretty good grasp of the concepts of legal, moral, and ethical. That said, imagine if Argentina simply takes the Falklands and has the strength to fight off the UK claim. Is that wrong?

In this day and age?
yes

It was wrong 70 years ago as well....

 

[Tgace]

For most of us here, the "concept" of property is enough to deter us from simply taking it. For the few human predators that would simply take it...they may need a little "pursuasion" otherwise. That does not invalidate property rights though. Property exists independently of ability to use force. Force is a response to property.

That "concept" is more easily forgotten by the masses than you would like to thing. Study riots and crowd control. While we all like to think it's our "ethics" that keep us in line, deep in our dark mind corners we all "know" that the threat of "force" legal or physical could be the result of our breaking these "concepts".

 

[GrandmasterP]

Wrong maybe.
Impossible, definitely.
Those Argies couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

 

[Tez3]

Look at the facts, there has never been Argentinian ownership or settlers on the Falklands. The first settlers were French and British, the Spanish came along threw them all off and put theirs in. The British didn't fight for the Islands back they negociated them back, a Treaty with Spain saw the Islands beome totally British and the Spanish left. it's been British ever since. Argentina was a colony of Spain, they didn't 'own' their own country let alone the Falklands. They got their independance from Spain, they didn't get the Falklands because it belonged to Britain. The Islands are on their way to toal independance. The only time Argentinians set foot on the Islands was to invade, to kill and torture the civilians there. The Islanders asked for help as they are entitled to and the British kicked the Argentinians off. There is nothing in history or factual to show that the Islands belong to Argentina, nothing at all, they weren't native to it, they didn't discover it, settle it or even just live there at any time.

Britain gets little out of it I'm afraid, it's been over thrirty since someone said there's oil there and we haven't got any. Brtain because of it's colonial past and it's need for reparation for it spends a lot of money on ex colonies, India receives billions of pounds that frankly it doesn't need. We also have an immigration problem because so many ex colonials have the right to enter and live here. Anyone thinking of making snide comments about our colonial past should reflact that in many ways we have been paid back for any wrongs we did and are in fact still paying back, not just in monetary terms but in lives as well.

 

[Tez3]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...the-Falklands-than-Canada-does-to-Alaska.html

 

[ballen0351]

Difference between Falklands and Alaska is Alaska is a US State not a territory or colony. I'm not saying its not your right to be there its just different

 

[Tez3]

Difference between Falklands and Alaska is Alaska is a US State not a territory or colony. I'm not saying its not your right to be there its just different

Alaska was a US territory until 1959 though wasn't it? Then it became a state. There is a very good chance that the Falklands will become an independant country after this year depending on what the Islanders vote for.

 

[GrandmasterP]

One thing Falklands and Alaska have in common is that permanent residents receive a state subsidy either in cash or in kind for living there.
I reckon they deserve it too.

 

[Touch Of Death]

One thing Falklands and Alaska have in common is that permanent residents receive a state subsidy either in cash or in kind for living there.
I reckon they deserve it too.

We call that S.S.I in the lower 48, but I kid the Alaskans.