On Conquerment

[OmegaPsi]

I personally think that conquering another nation is a valid form of acquiring ownership of land and materials and it is not considered "stealing". And before anyone says it, yes, I have thought would I find it fair or acceptable if someone took over my nation, and yes, I would call it fair. I certainly wouldn't like it, but I would call it fair. How about you all, Thoughts and Opinions?

EDIT: So we don't go over points we have already gone through, please read all the posts. Each post has importance to the point where we are now in the conversation. -OmegaPsi

[Sean O]

Do you support the war in Iraq?

[OmegaPsi]

Hmm, well I don't know because frankly I don't have a clue what its about. If its about annihilating "terrorists" sure, they do nothing but cause trouble, had they been able to speak in a diplomatic way to us no. If its about oil..yes. A nations primary objective is to provide and protect its people. If it means getting oil so our country can survive and continue running, yes. Of course, I would prefer us to invent another energy source or utilize what we have but hey, theres no such thing as a utopia eh?

EDIT: As a further elaboration I just thought up, had they been able to take over the government themselves, I would consider it a valid change of ownership and government. If they attacked us, well then I would prefer us come in and make it a territory of the US. Then maybe ask them if they would want to become a state or, become a country of them ownselves again. (yet still hold a strong grip upon the country to ensure that does not happen again and our intrests are protected..) And before anyone says it, What if hitler took over the entirety of Europe? If he had not been commiting horrible infringements upon human rights, then I would have been fine with it.

[Aeroscoper]

That's been the historical precedent up until recently. It's always cyclical. I'm sure even on a site like this with majority true thinkers, this won't go over well...

[Sean O]

Seems like you have an attitude of the ends justifying the means. I recommend reading up on this subject a little more before asserting that war for the sake of material gain is justified in and of itself. Failed States by Noam Chomsky is a good book to start with. Essentially, it's a book outlining the US's endless pursuit of power and material gain, bending and breaking international law in a hypocritical fashion time after time in order to achieve this. The war in Iraq is just one of the many examples included.

[OmegaPsi]

Seems like you have an attitude of the ends justifying the means. I recommend reading up on this subject a little more before asserting that war for the sake of material gain is justified in and of itself. Failed States by Noam Chomsky is a good book to start with. Essentially, it's a book outlining the US's endless pursuit of power and material gain, bending and breaking international law in a hypocritical fashion time after time in order to achieve this. The war in Iraq is just one of the many examples included.


Well what about you Sean, do you personally thing that conquerment is a valid form of acquiring ownership? I'm not just talking about the US's abilities or problems.

[Aeroscoper]

Chomsky, strong critic of the U.S. yet has also stated that the U.S. remains "the greatest country in the world.".

Strong socialist and anarchist and idealist. Never understood why he never moved to China or Russia, they're much closer to his beliefs...oh yeah, cause he'd most likely be killed for criticizing Leninist views...

[Sean O]

The US is the most prominent example of a state waging war for selfish purposes. For that reason, it's very relevant to this topic. Especially once you learn what the consequences have been.

Anyway, "valid" seems like a weasel word to me. It could be thought of as valid in the sense that it works if a state's military is powerful enough. However, I'm assuming we're talking about moral justification here.

Having said that, my personal stance on the issue is in alignment with international law, i.e. military action is legal only if it's in self-defense, or if the security council allows it. And to be honest, I doubt that the security council would consider material gain as an acceptable reason for military aggression (I certainly wouldn't).

[OmegaPsi]

The US is the most prominent example of a state waging war for selfish purposes. For that reason, it's very relevant to this topic. Especially once you learn what the consequences have been.

Anyway, "valid" seems like a weasel word to me. It could be thought of as valid in the sense that it works if a state's military is powerful enough. However, I'm assuming we're talking about moral justification here.

Having said that, my personal stance on the issue is in alignment with international law, i.e. military action is legal only if it's in self-defense, or if the security council allows it. And to be honest, I doubt that the security council would consider material gain as an acceptable reason for military aggression (I certainly wouldn't).

Never said it wasn't relevent. I was just saying that I'm not solely talking about the US, I would be ok if any country tried to take over another country.

When I say valid, I mean I find it acceptable and a possible and one of many correct paths of becoming a more powerful nation. As for international laws, those are only there for each country to protect itself for their own intrests, rather than looking out for anybody elses.

[Zedicus]

Looks like another "fair" thread, these seem to be my Achilles heel.

Simple put, No I do not believe that conquering another nation is a valid form of acquiring ownership of land and materials and it is not considered "stealing". For something to not be considered stealing it must be done with both lawfully and with the owner’s permissions, both of these have to be true or it is stealing. So even if you think it is lawful to take another’s property, if it is done without their permission then it is still stealing.

Now do I ever think that going to war with another nation is necessary, Yes I do, but most of them involve “protecting their citizens from another”. Would I say go to war for oil? No, that is not protecting that is enabling. Citizens will not die because we do not have oil, they may die because they have no heat because there is only an oil fired generator, but if you want to protect those citizens change your fuel.

[void]

To the OP: Yes I do think conquering another region by military force is acceptable. It is not stealing because inherent ownership of (sections of) the Earth's lithosphere does not exist in an absolute sense. A piece of land "belongs" to a country as long as the country is able to defend it from hostile takeover.

[Sean O]

As for international laws, those are only there for each country to protect itself for their own intrests, rather than looking out for anybody elses.Wrong. International law exists to facilitate co-operation between states in order to protect human rights, promote economic and social development, and to prevent unnecessary armed conflict, particularly if the conflict could involve nuclear weapons. That's why it, and the UN itself, was created and established in the first place.

The United States, however, tends to ignore international law, or exempt itself from it altogether, if it interferes with the ambitions of the elite ruling class, i.e. the government and major corporations. It also tends to selectively limit the information that its citizens receive on the issues raised at UN summits, only letting information that portrays the US (and its interests) in a favourable light slip through to public awareness. It's a very effective method of controlling public opinion so that democracy won't interfere with their plans.

I bring this up because I notice that you are an US citizen. Don't you think that your opinion on this matter may be because you have only been exposed to limited, biased information so far?

[OmegaPsi]

Wrong. International law exists to facilitate co-operation between states in order to protect human rights, promote economic and social development, and to prevent unnecessary armed conflict, particularly if the conflict could involve nuclear weapons. That's why it, and the UN itself, was created and established in the first place.

The United States, however, tends to ignore international law, or exempt itself from it altogether, if it interferes with the ambitions of the elite ruling class, i.e. the government and major corporations. It also tends to selectively limit the information that its citizens receive on the issues raised at UN summits, only letting information that portrays the US (and its interests) in a favourable light slip through to public awareness. It's a very effective method of controlling public opinion so that democracy won't interfere with their plans.

I bring this up because I notice that you are an US citizen. Don't you think that your opinion on this matter may be because you have only been exposed to limited, biased information so far?

I would find your point very compelling had I been of the opinion that if a country were to conquer my own nation I would find it unfair. That sort of opinion comes from the biased and the mind-controlled. I realize that our country has infringed upon laws. (And I'm pretty sure any other country has too at one point or another.) But I see laws, I don't know...I suppose in matters of self preservation, self-preservation conquers any document or agreement.

[Zedicus]

How does I personally think that conquering another nation is a valid form of acquiring ownership of land and materials and it is not considered "stealing" become self-preservation? I am curious, I do think that self-preservation is one reason to go to war, but I don't see it in the light of acquiring ownership of land and materials.

[blueback]

It seems to me that property rights only exist within the spere of control of a sovereign. So, inside a state, it is possible to take what you don't have a property right to, which is stealing. However, between states there is no sovereign to guarantee property rights, so there can't be any stealing.

If the world was ever united into a single government which owned the entire planet then it would be possible to steal land. However, it would no longer be a fight between individual actors.

Therefore, walking into another country and taking something is not stealing. There are no property rights between states because there is no higher power to guarantee them. The UN is just a communal shouting match.



I do think that self-preservation is one reason to go to war, but I don't see it in the light of acquiring ownership of land and materials.
Everything is related to self-preservation.

Just because you have "a lot" of stuff doesn't mean you won't run into a situation in which you need more. Because the world has limited resources there won't be enough for everyone, so if you don't insure what you need you won't preserve yourself.

The world is populated by organisms which were able to take what they needed to survive and not by ones which passively waited for nature to give it to them. Can you really call that wrong?

[Zedicus]

Everything is related to self-preservation.

Just because you have "a lot" of stuff doesn't mean you won't run into a situation in which you need more. Because the world has limited resources there won't be enough for everyone, so if you don't insure what you need you won't preserve yourself.

The world is populated by organisms which were able to take what they needed to survive and not by ones which passively waited for nature to give it to them. Can you really call that wrong?

Actually it is populated with both, but I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying.

I was trying to stick with the OP's idea which didn't sound like self-preservation. However, we can include this too if OmegaPsi doesn't mind sharing the thread, otherwise we could create a new one. I do have a lot to say about what will happen when one group trys to take over the world in the name of self-preservation, as a matter of fact I have been attempting over the last 5 or so years to get a book out of my mind on that subject.

**Edit I should add that said book thats been rattling around for about 5 years is a complete work of fiction

[Sean O]

But I see laws, I don't know...I suppose in matters of self preservation, self-preservation conquers any document or agreement.The problem with this is that rarely is a country that is in legitimate need of extreme self-preservation measures (i.e. a country that is on the brink of destruction for whatever reason) actually able to invade and conquer another. It seems to me that invasions that aren't carried out in legitimate self-defense are usually initiated by countries whose ability to self-preserve were in no actual danger of being compromised, but rather to get more of what they already have (assuming we're still talking about war for material and economic gain). I could be unaware of some examples that don't fit this analysis, but to my knowledge this is usually the case.

Let's consider a scaled-down example: suppose a reasonably well-off middle class family decides to break into your home, kill your family (let's assume that you still live with your folks), kick you out and claim ownership of your property. Their reasons are simply that the extra resources will ensure the well-being of their own family. Is that fair and/or justified?

[OmegaPsi]

Everything is related to self-preservation.

Just because you have "a lot" of stuff doesn't mean you won't run into a situation in which you need more. Because the world has limited resources there won't be enough for everyone, so if you don't insure what you need you won't preserve yourself.
The world is populated by organisms which were able to take what they needed to survive and not by ones which passively waited for nature to give it to them. Can you really call that wrong?

Actually it is populated with both, but I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying.

I was trying to stick with the OP's idea which didn't sound like self-preservation. However, we can include this too if OmegaPsi doesn't mind sharing the thread, otherwise we could create a new one. I do have a lot to say about what will happen when one group trys to take over the world in the name of self-preservation, as a matter of fact I have been attempting over the last 5 or so years to get a book out of my mind on that subject.

**Edit I should add that said book thats been rattling around for about 5 years is a complete work of fiction

The problem with this is that rarely is a country that is in legitimate need of extreme self-preservation measures (i.e. a country that is on the brink of destruction for whatever reason) actually able to invade and conquer another. It seems to me that invasions that aren't carried out in legitimate self-defense are usually initiated by countries whose ability to self-preserve were in no actual danger of being compromised, but rather to get more of what they already have (assuming we're still talking about war for material and economic gain). I could be unaware of some examples that don't fit this analysis, but to my knowledge this is usually the case.

Let's consider a scaled-down example: suppose a reasonably well-off middle class family decides to break into your home, kill your family (let's assume that you still live with your folks), kick you out and claim ownership of your property. Their reasons are simply that the extra resources will ensure the well-being of their own family. Is that fair and/or justified?

Yes in a weired twisted sense, Sean. Though, in war, soldiers or nations can't be tried for murder eh? Now if it was some family they would be tried for murder.

Like Blueback has stated, just because you don't have an immediate need for something dosen't mean you're going to need it sooner or later, so why not prepare? As a matter of fact, I would find it highly irresponsible for a nation not to take action as soon as a possible problem came up. (If the problem was not taken care of it would threaten self-preservation and violate the nations main objective I stated earlier. )

Also, go ahead and take this conversation where you want to Zed, I'm always highly intrested in others opinion on subjects. As long as you can tie it back in.

[Henry]

I personally think that conquering another nation is a valid form of acquiring ownership of land and materials and it is not considered "stealing". And before anyone says it, yes, I have thought would I find it fair or acceptable if someone took over my nation, and yes, I would call it fair. I certainly wouldn't like it, but I would call it fair. How about you all, Thoughts and Opinions?

MIght want to do some research on the theory of moral development. This is looking like, um, maybe stage 1 moral reasoning.

[OmegaPsi]

MIght want to do some research on the theory of moral development. This is looking like, um, maybe stage 1 moral reasoning.

Assuming you're talking about this : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My reasoning is more like 3.56 with a 1.2 Orientation. While throwing some 2.4 into it.

[Zedicus]

Also, go ahead and take this conversation where you want to Zed, I'm always highly intrested in others opinion on subjects. As long as you can tie it back in.

Thanks,

1. I would like to live in a society that would not doing anything I would not do, so with that in mind I would never attack a neighbor, just to get their house. So I agree with Sean on this, I don't believe it a justifiable reason.

2. This is most likely the main point as far as self-preservation goes. With today’s weapons, the risk of a nuclear war is just to great to overcome the benefit of gaining some acres of land that could be gained through other means. Even without nuclear weapons the devastation of today’s weapons reduce the gain from the conquered land almost enough to make it not worth doing in the first place.

3. As far as being fair goes, again I do not think its fair. I have never thought that might makes right, it could be because I was born in raised in Canada or it could be that I was always big for my age, but I just don't accept this as a valid way of doing things. Just because you are stronger does not mean I think you have the right to do it.

[OmegaPsi]

Those are some good moral reasonings there Zed. Within the personal house (In both senses) No one does have the right to tell you how you act, live, or think. No matter what strength they posess.

But to re-orient the conversation, let me give you an example of what I mean is a valid form of acquiring ownership. When the English, French, and Spanish started conquering the Americas, It was taken in a 'fair' fight (since all things are fair in love and war eh?) the Native American nations could not beat the Europeans and thus loss. The Europeans won it. Thats all there is to it. Hopefully you guys understand what I mean by this.

Was it 'moral'? Probably not in most people's eyes. But the stakes were staked, and one side won and one side loss. There is no possible way, I can think of, you can interject morals into the concept of this type of competition.

[Tocsin]

I personally think that conquering another nation is a valid form of acquiring ownership of land and materials and it is not considered "stealing". And before anyone says it, yes, I have thought would I find it fair or acceptable if someone took over my nation, and yes, I would call it fair. I certainly wouldn't like it, but I would call it fair. How about you all, Thoughts and Opinions?

Wow... So Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon were all basically "right" in their actions.

Sad to see supposedly "thinking" people buying into the old "might makes right" dogma of legitimacy through brute force, but not expected considering the United States progressive descent into fascism and imperialism, especially in the last eight years.

I suppose, on a personal level, you wouldn't have any trouble with someone shooting you in the face to take your wallet?

All of the comparisons of violent actions motivated by blind self interest to the actions of animals is the basis of social darwinism. It avoids the consideration of the obvious fact that humanity is, at least in some cases, capable of reason, personal restraint, and cooperation.

The idea that it is still acceptable to justify troglodyte behavior - bashing each others brains out with clubs and stealing each others women, meat, and furs - is pathetic proof that some of humanity has not evolved as much as it is commonly assumed.

The difference between acting like an animal and acting like a human is the essence of civil-ization; the ideal that through cooperative action and mutual respect of each other's rights we can accomplish more - in science, literature, agriculture, medicine, the arts, and so on - than we can by facing each other off and killing each other with spears to take each other's wealth.

Too bad civilization seems to be in such decline these days.

[OmegaPsi]

Wow... So Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon were all basically "right" in their actions.

Sad to see supposedly "thinking" people buying into the old "might makes right" dogma of legitimacy through brute force, but not expected considering the United States progressive descent into fascism and imperialism, especially in the last eight years.

I suppose, on a personal level, you wouldn't have any trouble with someone shooting you in the face to take your wallet?

All of the comparisons of violent actions motivated by blind self interest to the actions of animals is the basis of social darwinism. It avoids the consideration of the obvious fact that humanity is, at least in some cases, capable of reason, personal restraint, and cooperation.

The idea that it is still acceptable to justify troglodyte behavior - bashing each others brains out with clubs and stealing each others women, meat, and furs - is pathetic proof that some of humanity has not evolved as much as it is commonly assumed.

The difference between acting like an animal and acting like a human is the essense of civil-ization; the ideal that through cooperative action and mutual respect of each other's rights we can accomplish more - in science, literature, agriculture, medicine, the arts, and so on - than we can by facing each other off and killing each other with spears to take each other's wealth.

Too bad civilzation seems to be in such decline these days.

Something is being lost in translation here, between you and I, and I'm trying to figure it out.

Here we go, Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon were technically correct in their right to conquer a country. (Of course I am not accepting how they ran their countries, and the moral implications of that. Such as I do not think that the Nazi idealology is morally correct) I am merely saying that, does not a country enter a social contract to protect and provide for its citizens to the best of its ability? Of course I would prefer us not to lose lives and go about it in a capitalistic way and purchase what we need so that we all can share. But I am not really debating that moral aspect of conquering. uhh...hmm how best to put this.

Okay..here this might give you some aspect of what I mean by this thread. The other night I ran upon a personal website of a teacher and he was giving
advice to a teenage gangmember. (cholos he called it) He posted his advice on the website and he also posted the responses he got back from it. One response he got back was from obviously a cholo gangmember saying that his land was stolen from him. I'm stating it wasn't stolen it was won in a fair fight. Heres a couple of quotes from a few of the posts I'm pretty sure you missed reading.

blueback - "It seems to me that property rights only exist within the spere of control of a sovereign. So, inside a state, it is possible to take what you don't have a property right to, which is stealing. However, between states there is no sovereign to guarantee property rights, so there can't be any stealing."

Me "When the English, French, and Spanish started conquering the Americas, It was taken in a 'fair' fight (since all things are fair in love and war eh?) the Native American nations could not beat the Europeans and thus loss. The Europeans won it. Thats all there is to it. Hopefully you guys understand what I mean by this.

Was it 'moral'? Probably not in most people's eyes. But the stakes were staked, and one side won and one side loss. There is no possible way, I can think of, you can interject morals into the concept of this type of competition. "

Void- "A piece of land "belongs" to a country as long as the country is able to defend it from hostile takeover. "

So that is my argument.





OmegaPsi added to this post, 6 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Aha I found the Website: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. youll see it written in full caps and with the title "STAR SPANGLED LIE"

[Zedicus]

But to re-orient the conversation, let me give you an example of what I mean is a valid form of acquiring ownership. When the English, French, and Spanish started conquering the Americas, It was taken in a 'fair' fight (since all things are fair in love and war eh?) the Native American nations could not beat the Europeans and thus loss. The Europeans won it. Thats all there is to it. Hopefully you guys understand what I mean by this.

Was it 'moral'? Probably not in most people's eyes. But the stakes were staked, and one side won and one side loss. There is no possible way, I can think of, you can interject morals into the concept of this type of competition.

I understand what you mean, but I disagree that that we can't interject morality into the actions of the governments that are representing us..err I mean them since we are talking past tense. If we move this forward to today’s time and pick on Russia and Georgia. I have been hearing a lot of people say that Russia was wrong for attacking Georgia, but I disagree with this, just because Georgia is the smaller and weaker country does not give it the right to a first punch so to say. So I believe Russia to be justified in what it did, but look at the reaction this little conflict has the potential to start a cold war all over again or even worse. I am actually pretty impressed that the US has stayed out of it as much as they have, but here I think is where self-preservation comes in. Everyone knows that if the US and Russia come to blows it is going to invovle everyone in the world and this is the main difference between when the English, French, and Spanish started conquering the Americas. Morally I see no difference but for purely selfish reasons I hope that no country tries to act like its 1700, the world has changed a lot since then and its much smaller now.

[OmegaPsi]

I understand what you mean, but I disagree that that we can't interject morality into the actions of the governments that are representing us..err I mean them since we are talking past tense. If we move this forward to today’s time and pick on Russia and Georgia. I have been hearing a lot of people say that Russia was wrong for attacking Georgia, but I disagree with this, just because Georgia is the smaller and weaker country does not give it the right to a first punch so to say. So I believe Russia to be justified in what it did, but look at the reaction this little conflict has the potential to start a cold war all over again or even worse. I am actually pretty impressed that the US has stayed out of it as much as they have, but here I think is where self-preservation comes in. Everyone knows that if the US and Russia come to blows it is going to invovle everyone in the world and this is the main difference between when the English, French, and Spanish started conquering the Americas. Morally I see no difference but for purely selfish reasons I hope that no country tries to act like its 1700, the world has changed a lot since then and its much smaller now.

Did you read the previous post and read the thing in the link Zed? I would like to hear your opinion on that.

[Zedicus]

Did you read the previous post and read the thing in the link Zed? I would like to hear your opinion on that.
Nope missed it as I was typing, off to read it now, be back in a bit.

[OmegaPsi]

Can't wait to hear.





OmegaPsi added to this post, 5 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Ah it is bedtime for myself, I will reply as soon as possible, just go ahead and post it and we will continue discussing this <Today, Yesterday, or Tommorow> wherever you might be.

[Tocsin]

Heres a couple of quotes from a few of the posts I'm pretty sure you missed reading.

Since you seemed to be in doubt, I did read the entire thread before posting.

Blueback's statements that there is no sovereign relationship between states overlooks the obvious fact that states throughout history have made treaties, alliances, and pacts, both between individual states, and multiple states, to agree on mutually acceptable standards covering everything from weights and measures, to trade rights, maritime law, and even the conduct of war and the treatment of captives

The relationships between states mirrors the relationships between people. If "states" are free to do whatever they want in order to pursue their own interests, then it is no different for individual people. The only difference is in the disproportionate power that states have in relation to individuals.

If It all comes down to the justification of force; if you believe force is the only measure of what is right or wrong, then there can be no room for reason, negotiation, treaties, laws, or constitutions: it is simply the power to force others to accede to your demands, or to submit to the demands of others if you lack force.

If there is no room for reason, justice, restraint, respect for others, or recognition of the equal rights of others - as individuals or as groups, then the only way this difference - or any difference - can be resolved is if I grab a baseball bat and beat your f***ing head in - even if you are unarmed and tied up, which would still be a "fair fight" under your conditions. Is that the way you would like to see disagreements resolved - either nationally or individually?

[Sean O]

Yes in a weired twisted sense, Sean. Though, in war, soldiers or nations can't be tried for murder eh? Now if it was some family they would be tried for murder.One legal system may be easily enforceable, and the other not so much, but the principles they represent are exactly the same. The fact that the family could be tried for murder is moot.

A piece of land "belongs" to a country as long as the country is able to defend it from hostile takeover.

So that is my argument.Obviously nobody is going to argue this, because it is an objective fact. However, that's not the important aspect of this topic to be debated...

But I am not really debating that moral aspect of conquering.Yes you are. Remember when you posted the following?

And before anyone says it, yes, I have thought would I find it fair or acceptable if someone took over my nation, and yes, I would call it fair.Fair = a matter of morality. Also, whether you would label one country's invasion and conquering of another "stealing" or "taking" is of minimal importance. The important issue is the act itself, and whether it can be morally justified.

Having said that, not only is invasion, i.e. war, a method of procurement of resources for a state that is at least questionable in a moral sense, but is also far from being the most effective means of doing so. Wars cost vast amounts of money and resources to carry out. Even if the spoils of war are very valuable, much of that value will be offset by the heavy cost it took to get them in the first place. When you consider that careful economic strategy can bring a state greater and more sustainable wealth in the long run, how can war in the pursuit of material and economic gain be a good idea at all?

Granted, oil is a possible exception to the above idea, since it is arguably the most valuable resource on the planet, except for water I suppose. However, just because it is valuable, does not mean that it is a justifiable reason for war. As Toscin has described, force is usually the worst solution to any problem. Just like the "shot heard around the world" that gave rise to World War I, an act of aggression made by a country could very well trigger a nuclear world war. Economic prospects won't mean a whole lot if mankind annihilates itself, will they?

[Zedicus]

Ok I think I am back to reading the same book as everyone else now, it seems my N was on the fritz.

OmegaPsi The other night I ran upon a personal website of a teacher and he was giving advice to a teenage gangmember. (cholos he called it) He posted his advice on the website and he also posted the responses he got back from it. One response he got back was from obviously a cholo gangmember saying that his land was stolen from him. I'm stating it wasn't stolen it was won in a fair fight.
I have to agree it was not stolen from the cholo gang member, however it was taken by force from his ancestors, which to me means it was stolen from them. I know it may just be semantics but for me to be able to say it was won I would need for there to have been a wager and an agreement. As I did not go to university I may be wrong but I have never heard of one being offered to the Native Americans at the time. I do remember that in 1867 Alaska was purchased from the Russians, so if I hear someone from Russia telling people to get out I would be in full agreement that they are in the wrong. Do I think the cholo gang member has a right to run around and tell people to get out, sure according to the rules here he has the right to free speech, do I think we have to go no. This takes us to Void’s argument.

Void- "A piece of land "belongs" to a country as long as the country is able to defend it from hostile takeover."
Land does belong to the caretaker of it. This holds true today even within the state. There are possession rules that need to be followed but there is also squatter’s rights that can come into play. So I do agree with this statement, I would just object to the actual implementation of a hostile takeover.

blueback - "It seems to me that property rights only exist within the spere of control of a sovereign. So, inside a state, it is possible to take what you don't have a property right to, which is stealing. However, between states there is no sovereign to guarantee property rights, so there can't be any stealing."

I can’t quite accept this; the State is a projection of the rules that we live by and is suppose to represent the people that live within it. So if it is wrong for me to take someone’s property within that State, I can’t see how that changes when I leave the State. It may not be punishable from within my State due to jurisdiction but it does not make it right. I do agree that there is no guarantee of property between 2 sovereign states, unless they reach an agreement, which once made should be steadfast because it was made with the integrity of all the people represented by the State.

OmegaPsi Was it 'moral'? Probably not in most people's eyes. But the stakes were staked, and one side won and one side loss. There is no possible way, I can think of, you can interject morals into the concept of this type of competition."

This leads back to Voids argument, the morality comes into play before the action is made. Was it morally correct, I do not believe so. However, once done the conquered people became part of the new State. The morality of how they were treated is not under discussion here, but I do see 3 options for them, 1. Become active members of the new State if they can. 2. Leave the new State and or 3. Try to take control of the new State by force or negotiation.

I'm going to follow OmegaPsi lead and say goodnight for now.

[blueback]

1. I would like to live in a society that would not doing anything I would not do, so with that in mind I would never attack a neighbor, just to get their house.

You are comparing two different situations. When you live in a society you have a sovereign that enforces the peace. When you are talking about a state there is no greater power that is sovereign above the state. . .actually that is what sovereign means. There is no power the state can appeal to that will protect the state. It is every state for itself, so to speak. Within the state the state enforces laws, so the citizens of the state are not on their own.

3. As far as being fair goes, again I do not think its fair. I have never thought that might makes right, it could be because I was born in raised in Canada or it could be that I was always big for my age, but I just don't accept this as a valid way of doing things. Just because you are stronger does not mean I think you have the right to do it.

Well, techincially, a right is anything you are not forbidden from doing by someone more powerful than you. There are no rights if there are no imbalances of power.
[/QUOTE]
You are right that might doesn't make right, but not for the reason you think. The way the phrase is used it means that once a disagreement has been settled by force whoever won is right. However, this means that you can't tell what is right until things are decided. This means that morality would be descriptive, not prescriptive, which is not morality at all. So the idea logically destroys itself.

I suppose, on a personal level, you wouldn't have any trouble with someone shooting you in the face to take your wallet?

Not on a personal level. Why would I? They aren't doing it because they don't like me they are doing it because they want my money. If I shot them in self defense it wouldn't be because I don't like them but because I don't like getting shot. I'm very self-centered.

All of the comparisons of violent actions motivated by blind self interest to the actions of animals is the basis of social darwinism. It avoids the consideration of the obvious fact that humanity is, at least in some cases, capable of reason, personal restraint, and cooperation.

Which is ironic, actually, since "social darwinism" is not based on the work of Darwin. Darwin actually felt that people should take care of other people who are unable to take care of themselves. So, you know, Darwin wasn't a social darwinist.

I agree with Darwin. I think that love, in the fullest sense of the word, is when you value someone else's life more than your own. . .and that is a respectable thing.

The idea that it is still acceptable to justify troglodyte behavior - bashing each others brains out with clubs and stealing each others women, meat, and furs - is pathetic proof that some of humanity has not evolved as much as it is commonly assumed.

I wasn't aware that troglodytes bash each other on the head and steal women, meat and furs.

I suppose you think you're better than a troglodyte, and the people who mimic their behavior? What about all the organisms you are brutally murdering when you breath, drink water, and eat food? Is life only important when it's human life?

The difference between acting like an animal and acting like a human is the essence of civil-ization; the ideal that through cooperative action and mutual respect of each other's rights we can accomplish more - in science, literature, agriculture, medicine, the arts, and so on

Why didn't you list "military science" in there? Is it too messy for you?

You seem to have forgotten that the "human" part of us is a recent addition to the "animal" part of us which was an addition to the "lizard" part of us which was simply added to the "bug" part of us. The mind has to negotiate with the brain and body to get things done. Also, until our minds are freed of the biological support system we call our lives we will be requried to obey the same rules animals obey simply to survive and prosper.

[Zedicus]

You are comparing two different situations. When you live in a society you have a sovereign that enforces the peace. When you are talking about a state there is no greater power that is sovereign above the state. . .actually that is what sovereign means. There is no power the state can appeal to that will protect the state. It is every state for itself, so to speak. Within the state the state enforces laws, so the citizens of the state are not on their own.
I agree that a sovereign state is not subject to rule by another state. I also think that a democratic sovereign state is made from the elected government of that state. An elected government is answerable to the people of the state. As I am one of those people I do not believe that just because my state has more firepower then another that it is acceptable or moral to forcibly take another states land. So I do not think I am arguing 2 different situations, because while the state is not held accountable to other states I do believe it should be held accountable to the people that make it up.


Well, techincially, a right is anything you are not forbidden from doing by someone more powerful than you. There are no rights if there are no imbalances of power.

You are right that might doesn't make right, but not for the reason you think. The way the phrase is used it means that once a disagreement has been settled by force whoever won is right. However, this means that you can't tell what is right until things are decided. This means that morality would be descriptive, not prescriptive, which is not morality at all. So the idea logically destroys itself.Ok, I will edit phrase to read, "Might does not give the right", this is what I meant as I also posted in a later post in this thread.

You seem to have forgotten that the "human" part of us is a recent addition to the "animal" part of us which was an addition to the "lizard" part of us which was simply added to the "bug" part of us. The mind has to negotiate with the brain and body to get things done. Also, until our minds are freed of the biological support system we call our lives we will be requried to obey the same rules animals obey simply to survive and prosper.

Are you saying in the thousands of years of human development, we as a people have not learned anything other then what we had learned as animals? I am not saying you are wrong, I just would like to think that we have learned that as a race cooperation can get us further then competition in some things.

[blueback]

I just would like to think that we have learned that as a race cooperation can get us further then competition in some things.
At least you are open minded enough to qualify that statement.

I think that you might want to think more carefully about what you mean when you say "cooperation" and "competition" (for a start). Competition is what produces wealth, as in capitalism, and health, as in sports (for example). Cooperation can just as easily be a pair of killers conspiring to murder, or a parasite helping its host.

[Zedicus]

I think that you might want to think more carefully about what you mean when you say "cooperation" and "competition" (for a start). Competition is what produces wealth, as in capitalism, and health, as in sports (for example). Cooperation can just as easily be a pair of killers conspiring to murder, or a parasite helping its host. Believe me I have been thinking quite a bit about the meaning of the 2 words, I have also come to the conclusion that I have a skewed view on a lot of issues, including governments, people and the reasons behind the actions that these 2 take.

I just can't help coming back to the idea that the governments and people are trying to be too complex. I first heard of it reading the selfish gene but the game of prisoner's dilemma is a good example of what I am talking about, if we change the names to Co-operate and Compete. It seems like most people, countrys etc are all playing the single hand game where it would always be better to compete. If however, people started looking at life like iterated prisoner's dilemma then the tit-for-tat strategy(the simpliest one in the computer tournment) wins all the time.