• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Right of Conquest

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,304
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

It should unless the nation has subverters like you who become influential.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,890
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories?

Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".

If so, on what moral or legal basis?

Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,610
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

It should unless the nation has subverters like you who become influential.

"It should"?

Why? I don't think so.
I want our dominant moral code to get away from the primitive "might makes right" moral code.

By the standard you described, a car jacker "should" now own your car!
Tom
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

It should unless the nation has subverters like you who become influential.

Okay, so you've stated a thesis. What about the rest of the question?

Also, I live on land never transferred by treaty or sale to the United States, so calling my question "subversion" is a begging the question; whether it is subversive to question the legality of this policy depends on whose jurisdiction I should correctly see myself as inhabiting. As a US citizen, I do have a legal responsibility to follow the laws of the United States, but that only makes questioning this policy subversion if, in fact, a strong legal case can be made for the position under existing US law. Can it?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories?

Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".

If so, on what moral or legal basis?

Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,890
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".



Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more.

What part don't you get? What they say, goes. Period. Object, and suffer whatever penalty they see fit to impose.

Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership?

Do I feel that? Fuck no. But that doesn't alter the fact that historically the conquered population gets assimilated if it is ethnically similar to the conquerors, and violently subjugated if not. Recognition is rare and irrelevant. But you knew that.

If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?

There is no "if so" (I do NOT think any conquered population willingly recognizes their conquest as rightful), and IMHO there is no legal basis other than whatever can be imposed by force - which is how such matters have been handled by humans since forever. If you're part of a subjugated population, all you can do is try to make sure none of your conquistadors are "having a bad day". Just ask Trausti.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
What part don't you get? What they say, goes. Period. Object, and suffer whatever penalty they see fit to impose.

Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership?

Do I feel that? Fuck no. But that doesn't alter the fact that historically the conquered population gets assimilated if it is ethnically similar to the conquerors, and violently subjugated if not. Recognition is rare and irrelevant. But you knew that.

If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?

There is no "if so" (I do NOT think any conquered population willingly recognizes their conquest as rightful), and IMHO there is no legal basis other than whatever can be imposed by force - which is how such matters have been handled by humans since forever. If you're part of a subjugated population, all you can do is try to make sure none of your conquistadors are "having a bad day". Just ask Trausti.
So, for instance, when protestors seized a large portion of downtown Seattle, did that consitute a legal transfer of ownership to them until such time as it was retaken by government forces?

I'm asking a legal, not practical, question. Obviously, the US and Canada and Australia and so forth seized a bunch of land. That is not in dispute. The question is whether the seizure was legal, under their own legal principles, or not.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".



Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?
.

It’s de facto until it’s de jure.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,610
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis? Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal, or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?

Asking for a First Nation.

It should unless the nation has subverters like you who become influential.

Okay, so you've stated a thesis. What about the rest of the question?

Also, I live on land never transferred by treaty or sale to the United States, so calling my question "subversion" is a begging the question; whether it is subversive to question the legality of this policy depends on whose jurisdiction I should correctly see myself as inhabiting. As a US citizen, I do have a legal responsibility to follow the laws of the United States, but that only makes questioning this policy subversion if, in fact, a strong legal case can be made for the position under existing US law. Can it?

Is it too early in the thread to bring up the Zionist/Palestinian Muslim thing?

I wanted to as soon as I read your OP, but I held off.

For now.
Tom
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Great question! But you know the answer: yes.
Once a group of people overpowers and/or kills any local resistance, the laws they establish (or make up on the spot) are effectively "the law of the land".



Of course it's utterly unethical and immoral according to anyone other than the conquering party, but who is going to do anything about it?
Might makes right, as it has ever been since at least the stone age.
At one time I was under the delusion that The Great Experiment would lead to and end of "might makes right" being a universal rule, but that hope eroded as I aged, and Trump and his minions finally destroyed it.
People suck. There's more altruism among animals. Witness some of the right wingers even on this forum.

Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?
.

It’s de facto until it’s de jure.

So you are arguing that it is, or isn't, de jure?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Okay, so you've stated a thesis. What about the rest of the question?

Also, I live on land never transferred by treaty or sale to the United States, so calling my question "subversion" is a begging the question; whether it is subversive to question the legality of this policy depends on whose jurisdiction I should correctly see myself as inhabiting. As a US citizen, I do have a legal responsibility to follow the laws of the United States, but that only makes questioning this policy subversion if, in fact, a strong legal case can be made for the position under existing US law. Can it?

Is it too early in the thread to bring up the Zionist/Palestinian Muslim thing?

I wanted to as soon as I read your OP, but I held off.

For now.
Tom

I certainly feel that it's relevant. It takes things into the even murkier realm of "international law", but they are obviously following the US/Australian model, at this current point in time.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
So, for instance, when protestors seized a large portion of downtown Seattle, did that consitute a legal transfer of ownership to them until such time as it was retaken by government forces?
no, because the protestors were never the overwhelming local force, and never an overwhelming regional force.

basically i'd say that logistically it's a hierarchy: whomsoever lays claim to an area and has the resources to to maintain that claim through violence is the owner of that area.
lesser agents within the area can take temporary control of a small segment for short periods of time, but that's a limited scope issue of pragmatism and only lasts until the owning interest shows up to reestablish their claim.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So, for instance, when protestors seized a large portion of downtown Seattle, did that consitute a legal transfer of ownership to them until such time as it was retaken by government forces?
no, because the protestors were never the overwhelming local force, and never an overwhelming regional force.

basically i'd say that logistically it's a hierarchy: whomsoever lays claim to an area and has the resources to to maintain that claim through violence is the owner of that area.
lesser agents within the area can take temporary control of a small segment for short periods of time, but that's a limited scope issue of pragmatism and only lasts until the owning interest shows up to reestablish their claim.

So if they had fought back and murdered every police officer that stepped foot in their zone, and then every zone, until the world got sickened from the violence and the troops stopped being sent, you would consider the protestors to then "own" that patch of land? Under what law?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Asking for a First Nation.

Which so-called "first" nation are you asking about? Because there were many wars of conquest among the Amerindians as well.

But why is for example European conquest of the Americas in your view illegitimate and say Apache conquests in the Southwest legitimate?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So if they had fought back and murdered every police officer that stepped foot in their zone, and then every zone, until the world got sickened and the troops stopped being sent, you would consider the protestors to then "own" that patch of land? Under what law?
ostensibly, yes.

Again, a claim.

Under what law or justification?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Asking for a First Nation.

Which so-called "first" nation are you asking about? Because there were many wars of conquest among the Amerindians as well.

But why is for example European conquest of the Americas in your view illegitimate and say Apache conquests in the Southwest legitimate?
Who said they were? Do you think that both were legitimate, or both illegitimate, and on what basis?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Is it too early in the thread to bring up the Zionist/Palestinian Muslim thing?
Arabs started wars against Israel multiple times and lost. Arabs losing territory to the country they attacked (with genocidal intent) is no different than Germany losing territory after the World Wars.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Who said they were? Do you think that both were legitimate, or both illegitimate, and on what basis?
Because unless you see Indian wars of conquest as legitimate, you really have no grounds to call this or that piece of land as belonging as this or that tribe. What makes say the Sioux claim the Black Hills? Isn't it that they conquered it at some point in the past? So why is their conquest of that territory more legitimate than the US one?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Who said they were? Do you think that both were legitimate, or both illegitimate, and on what basis?
Because unless you see Indian wars of conquest as legitimate, you really have no grounds to call this or that piece of land as belonging as this or that tribe. What makes say the Sioux claim the Black Hills? Isn't it that they conquered it at some point in the past? So why is their conquest of that territory more legitimate than the US one?
Are you telling me your perspective, or are you telling me my perspective? The question I posed in this thread was about the legal basis of the idea of "right of conquest". Or I suppose, by whatever extralegal means a territorial gain could be legitimated.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
The Islamic State did not have a seat at the UN. But it surely existed in fact.

So would you consider the Islamic State to be a legitimate state, therefore? On what basis?

What does legitimate mean? It existed. It had definable borders and a political order. Might makes right. That’s the law of nature. Only in the 20th Century has “legitimate” become a question of international order - like the Gulf War. Once America fads away, it’ll be might makes right again.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The Islamic State did not have a seat at the UN. But it surely existed in fact.

So would you consider the Islamic State to be a legitimate state, therefore? On what basis?

What does legitimate mean? It existed. It had definable borders and a political order. Might makes right. That’s the law of nature. Only in the 20th Century has did “legitimate” become a question of international order - like the Gulf War. Once America fads away, it’ll be might makes right again.
So you do not believe that any nation-states are legitimate? Or you believe that it is the use of mass violence that makes them legitimate?

How is it that you define "rights", exactly?
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,610
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Is it too early in the thread to bring up the Zionist/Palestinian Muslim thing?
Arabs started wars against Israel multiple times and lost. Arabs losing territory to the country they attacked (with genocidal intent) is no different than Germany losing territory after the World Wars.

Muslims conquered "The Holy Land" around 1500 years ago. It's been Muslim ever since.

Except for the last few decades, when Zionists got military support from Christendom.

Jerusalem was a Muslim city for far longer than any other conqueror culture held it. The Jews only held it for a few centuries, and that ended 2500 years ago. The only time the Jews were much in control was the first few centuries after they took it from the Caanites, around 3000 years ago. The rest of that first millennium B.C. was dominated by the Chaldeans (it's called The Exile), then the Persians, then the Greeks, and then the Romans. The Romans kicked the Jews out permanently(it's called The Diaspora) 2000 years ago.

Jerusalem has been Muslim for far longer and more recently than it was Jewish.

Tom
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
What does legitimate mean? It existed. It had definable borders and a political order. Might makes right. That’s the law of nature. Only in the 20th Century has did “legitimate” become a question of international order - like the Gulf War. Once America fads away, it’ll be might makes right again.
So you do not believe that any nation-states are legitimate? Or you believe that it is the use of mass violence that makes them legitimate?

How is it that you define "rights", exactly?

Violence is necessary for legitimacy, whether by the nation state or proxy. It’s about exercising control over an area. If you can’t dislodge a people from control of an area, then whether you think the occupation of that area is legitimate is irrelevant. Is Taiwan legitimate?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I'm not sure I agree. Does the perceived right to govern proceed from the use of violent coercion, or does tolerance of coercion come from the social legitimacy of the persons exercising it? We don't generally tolerate violence from entities whose validity we don't recognize, it's quite the other way around. We accept violence from, say, a police force, because we accept that the state has a monopoly of domestic violence. If the people's trust in the police or the government wanes, you get riots, as we have recently seen. Riots that are themselves met with counter-protest and even more severe violence because the rioters are not, themselves, seen by their neighbors as having a legitimate right to employ violence.

It also doesn't really apply, on a nation-to-nation level, to how supremacy is usually established. Not all polities are carved in blood, and indeed you see the actual violence used more sparingly than the threat of violence.
 

BH

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
877
Location
United States-Texas
Basic Beliefs
Muslim
Governments are just gangs of elites pilfering the countries they supposedly govern. The military and police for the most part realize this and go along with it because they think they are better off doing so.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
It all depends on whether you see legal behavior as also moral behavior.

If you think immoral behavior can also be legal behavior for a government then all is lawful behavior for a government.

If you think behavior must be moral for it to be legal then what a government can legally do is a different matter.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,438
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Asking for a First Nation.
For "a" First Nation.

ab898978d503420dd7a766243547592f.png
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,438
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?
Under English law, all the land in England belongs to the Duke of Normandy, aka Elizabeth Lancaster, because she's the heir by primogeniture of an earlier Duke of Normandy, William the Bastard, who owned all the land in England by right of conquest.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?
Under English law, all the land in England belongs to the Duke of Normandy, aka Elizabeth Lancaster, because she's the heir by primogeniture of an earlier Duke of Normandy, William the Bastard, who owned all the land in England by right of conquest.
It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that, as I assume you know. But are you voicing agreement with this principle?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
It all depends on whether you see legal behavior as also moral behavior.

If you think immoral behavior can also be legal behavior for a government then all is lawful behavior for a government.

If you think behavior must be moral for it to be legal then what a government can legally do is a different matter.

Well, it's not just governments that take land by violence. I'd like to be surprised by how few people have made any serious effort to answer the actual questions in the OP, but of course I am not.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I do find it fascinating that a mere allusion to the idea of recognizing indigenous title in any way causes people to immediately get all nostalgic for the Dark Ages. Was the 11th century really Europe's best years? I know that this isn't the case, because the original philosophical basis for imposition of right of conquest - that is, the divine right of kings and the presumption that only God could determine the outcome of a battle - is not a principle anyone here is actually prepared to endorse. Or I'll eat my hat.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,438
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Explain this "law of the land" part a little bit more. Do you feel that any living nation states actually recognize, in their imposed legal system, military conquest alone as a legal transfer of ownership? If so, which ones, and on what legal basis can this be claimed?
Under English law, all the land in England belongs to the Duke of Normandy, aka Elizabeth Lancaster, because she's the heir by primogeniture of an earlier Duke of Normandy, William the Bastard, who owned all the land in England by right of conquest.
It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that, as I assume you know.
Everything is a fair bit more complicated than any description; but that's the chief underlying principle of English land law in a nutshell; the rest of the complicated reality is theoretically derivable from it. (Note: not applicable in Scotland.)

(And of course if the sitting Duke of Normandy ever tried to make her de jure ownership turn into de facto ownership then Parliament would undoubtedly change the law; but since she doesn't, they don't.)

But are you voicing agreement with this principle?
Not in the least. You asked if any living nation state legally recognizes right of conquest. Yes, one living nation state that I know of. Not how I'd set up a system of government; but the English didn't ask for my ratification.

I do find it fascinating that a mere allusion to the idea of recognizing indigenous title in any way causes people to immediately get all nostalgic for the Dark Ages. Was the 11th century really Europe's best years?
Um, which nostalgic people are you referring to? Not seeing any nostalgia here except perhaps some nostalgia for the long-lost Chochenyo Territory.

...the original philosophical basis for imposition of right of conquest - that is, the divine right of kings and the presumption that only God could determine the outcome of a battle...
What's fascinating to me is that people who allude to the idea of "recognizing" "indigenous" title somehow persuade themselves that it's in any substantive way different from QEII's title to the land of England. They are both equally endorsement of legal transfer of ownership by right of conquest. Further, the philosophical bases for the two impositions are identical: they are both equally appeals to counterfactual mythic history.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,438
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Well, it's not just governments that take land by violence. I'd like to be surprised by how few people have made any serious effort to answer the actual questions in the OP, but of course I am not.
Well, in all fairness, you asked your questions wrong -- your presentation presumed a fact not in evidence. But if you wish we can set that aside...

Does a military victory, alone, constitute a legal means of acquiring new territories? If so, on what moral or legal basis?
From a Natural Law perspective, no, it doesn't. If you hold to a different Philosophy of Law, tell us which PoL you have in mind.

Does the conquering "army" have to have the official imprimatur of their government in order for an invasion to be legal,
"Legal" by the law of the invading country, yes, of course; but I think that's not what you're asking. Legal by the law of the invaded country, no, not as a rule; but the devil's in the details and you'd have to check the specific invaded country's laws. (The Partitions of Poland by Russia, Prussia and Austria were probably legal by Polish law, given that Poland's government legally could do jack squat without a unanimous vote.) Retroactively legal by the laws of the new regime (assuming the invasion succeeds), again, it depends. Typically it's retroactively legalized immediately; and then, generations later when there's no risk of the facts on the ground being reversed, it may be retroactively illegalized again and an empty apology may be issued.

or can random settlers acting unofficially be the basis of a new territorial acquisition?
Well, now that we've disposed of right of conquest as a legal basis equally for granting title to the attackers or for letting the defenders retain title, that pretty much leaves us with only one passable legal basis for anyone to get title to disputed land: self-determination of the residents. Which is to say, yes: when enough random Albanians acting unofficially settle in Kosovo that ethnic Albanians can outvote the local preexisting Serb population, if they vote to make Kosovo an independent Albanian-majority country instead of a region of Serbia then they get to do that; and it's legal because Democracy. And if the Serb minority don't like it, I don't blame them; but sympathy doesn't magically turn "We were here first" into a substantive argument for letting a minority rule over a majority.

"We were here first" is a non-substantive argument for two reasons. First, because it isn't literally true. The Kosovars have been there exactly as long as the Kosovo Serbs: all their lives. The Kosovars aren't immigrants; they're mainly the native-born descendants of Albanians who immigrated in the 1700s and 1800s.

And second, for moral/Natural Law purposes it's non-substantive because although "We were here first" is metaphorically true when Serbs metaphorically use "We" to mean "Not me, but different people I'm descended from", nonetheless, the argument amounts to "This is Serb land and not Kosovar land because Serbs inherited it from the rightful owners and Kosovars didn't." And that's a non-substantive argument, because it's exactly the same argument as "England is Queen Elizabeth's land because she inherited it from William the Bastard."
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,102
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Again, a claim.

Under what law or justification?
the same law or justification that allows a lion to eat a gazelle - there are things about biological life on this planet that simply are, and while we can recognize them and label them we can't really do anything about them.
since the first single celled organism devoured a different organism for sustenance the natural law of life on earth was established, and what you're talking about is just an extension of that.

sure, as humans we've developed civilization and a prefrontal cortex and such, but the concept of ousting an existing claimant in order to lay claim to a territory is a concept as old as life itself.
that doesn't need a legal justification or a law to grant it, it simply *is*.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,330
A fun (and semi-serious) twist to put on the issue is the rights of non-human animals.

Another (more serious) twist to put on the issue is a community that needs to conquer or disperse. For example, if everyone in say, Venezuela, is starving to death, do they have the right to invade Colombia or Brazil? If the U.S. has a biological imperative to invade Canada, are they within their rights to do so?

On some level we're starting to talk about my human rights vs your human rights. Fundamentally, there is a conflict.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,890
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
What part don't you get? What they say, goes. Period. Object, and suffer whatever penalty they see fit to impose.



Do I feel that? Fuck no. But that doesn't alter the fact that historically the conquered population gets assimilated if it is ethnically similar to the conquerors, and violently subjugated if not. Recognition is rare and irrelevant. But you knew that.



There is no "if so" (I do NOT think any conquered population willingly recognizes their conquest as rightful), and IMHO there is no legal basis other than whatever can be imposed by force - which is how such matters have been handled by humans since forever. If you're part of a subjugated population, all you can do is try to make sure none of your conquistadors are "having a bad day". Just ask Trausti.
So, for instance, when protestors seized a large portion of downtown Seattle, did that consitute a legal transfer of ownership to them until such time as it was retaken by government forces?

I'm asking a legal, not practical, question. Obviously, the US and Canada and Australia and so forth seized a bunch of land. That is not in dispute. The question is whether the seizure was legal, under their own legal principles, or not.

I am having a hard time separating legal and practical. I'd answer no to your question abut ownership of parts of Seattle. The "rightful" owner(s) ceded use of that property temporarily but never gave title to the protesters, and the protesters never (afaik) made an effort to gin up a title and represent it as legal to the former (and actual) owners. So there was no transfer.
It seems to come down to what the legal definition of legal is. :)
And that always comes down to who can enforce what they say is law.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Again, a claim.

Under what law or justification?
the same law or justification that allows a lion to eat a gazelle - there are things about biological life on this planet that simply are, and while we can recognize them and label them we can't really do anything about them.
since the first single celled organism devoured a different organism for sustenance the natural law of life on earth was established, and what you're talking about is just an extension of that.

sure, as humans we've developed civilization and a prefrontal cortex and such, but the concept of ousting an existing claimant in order to lay claim to a territory is a concept as old as life itself.
that doesn't need a legal justification or a law to grant it, it simply *is*.

So

1. Humans should eat each other, fuck their mothers, and kill babies of potential rivals, because that's what Nature does and you just can't argue with whatever portrayal of Nature someone has come up with for blatantly political reasons..

2. Animals also own land apparently? Can the polar bears out vote Alaskans and get their territory back?

To put it another way, you're interpreting "Nature" very arbitrarily and ignoring the fact that humans have unique forms of society, not least of which various conflicting ideas about land tenure.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
What part don't you get? What they say, goes. Period. Object, and suffer whatever penalty they see fit to impose.



Do I feel that? Fuck no. But that doesn't alter the fact that historically the conquered population gets assimilated if it is ethnically similar to the conquerors, and violently subjugated if not. Recognition is rare and irrelevant. But you knew that.



There is no "if so" (I do NOT think any conquered population willingly recognizes their conquest as rightful), and IMHO there is no legal basis other than whatever can be imposed by force - which is how such matters have been handled by humans since forever. If you're part of a subjugated population, all you can do is try to make sure none of your conquistadors are "having a bad day". Just ask Trausti.
So, for instance, when protestors seized a large portion of downtown Seattle, did that consitute a legal transfer of ownership to them until such time as it was retaken by government forces?

I'm asking a legal, not practical, question. Obviously, the US and Canada and Australia and so forth seized a bunch of land. That is not in dispute. The question is whether the seizure was legal, under their own legal principles, or not.

I am having a hard time separating legal and practical. I'd answer no to your question abut ownership of parts of Seattle. The "rightful" owner(s) ceded use of that property temporarily but never gave title to the protesters, and the protesters never (afaik) made an effort to gin up a title and represent it as legal to the former (and actual) owners. So there was no transfer.
It seems to come down to what the legal definition of legal is. :)
And that always comes down to who can enforce what they say is law.

See, I've always thought that the definition of legal should come down to what's in the fucking law. If you want to talk about other philosophical justifications and so forth, you can, but if the question is "what is legal?" I sort of expect a legal justification to be forthcoming. Law is not arbitrary in a modern nation-state, there's a process for creating new laws and process for undoing old ones. I note that despite all the anger people feel toward the question being raised, no one has yet cited any real evidence that the Right of Conquest is a recognized legal principle in any currently living nation. The closest thing to this was citation of medieval England, a country that no longer exists and whose modern incarnation has repudiated this notion very specifically ever since the end of the Napeolonic Wars.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
A fun (and semi-serious) twist to put on the issue is the rights of non-human animals.

Another (more serious) twist to put on the issue is a community that needs to conquer or disperse. For example, if everyone in say, Venezuela, is starving to death, do they have the right to invade Colombia or Brazil? If the U.S. has a biological imperative to invade Canada, are they within their rights to do so?

On some level we're starting to talk about my human rights vs your human rights. Fundamentally, there is a conflict.

What, liebensraum then? Do you agree that it's okay to kill people to make more room for yourself?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I think I'm starting to get the hang of this, though. The idea is that only violence can truly produce rights, since the law is irrelevant to "practical reality".

Conclusion: I need to just start murdering the neighbors. If the basis of conduct in this country is natural law, and natural law rules that only those who exercise violence can have rights, I'm to blame for not killing every last homophobe in this country (for instance) rather than stupidly pursuing legal means of defining the rights of citizenship. Yes? Forget suing to get wedding cakes made, the ideal solution is to steal the cake and burn down the shop, in accordance with the "law of nature".

This is going to be a fun Pride month!
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,330
A fun (and semi-serious) twist to put on the issue is the rights of non-human animals.

Another (more serious) twist to put on the issue is a community that needs to conquer or disperse. For example, if everyone in say, Venezuela, is starving to death, do they have the right to invade Colombia or Brazil? If the U.S. has a biological imperative to invade Canada, are they within their rights to do so?

On some level we're starting to talk about my human rights vs your human rights. Fundamentally, there is a conflict.

What, liebensraum then? Do you agree that it's okay to kill people to make more room for yourself?

No, I mentioned the biological imperative. The question was: if I'm starving to death, and those over the border are doing fine, is it a moral imperative for me to die without defending my life?

This exposes one of the important intricacies of the argument: there is what's legal, and then there is what's essential. Survival, for humans, is the basic imperative, and will trump what has been enshrined into law.

Sure, I don't disagree that European conquest was problematic, what I'm doing is reversing the context. If a nation is established, prosperous, stable - do others who can't prosper in their own communities have a right to that land?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Everything is a fair bit more complicated than any description; but that's the chief underlying principle of English land law in a nutshell.
And yet, you cite no actual law. And your caveat here seems to acknowledge, without fully acknowledging, that the government you are citing no longer exists, except a mythic institution of its own.

They are both equally endorsement of legal transfer of ownership by right of conquest. Further, the philosophical bases for the two impositions are identical: they are both equally appeals to counterfactual mythic history.
What law are you even citing here? You cite Chochenyo territory as an example, but I've never met a Chochenyo person who recognizes the so-called Right of Conquest, and I believe I know most of the surviving members of that particular people, their numbers are not many. Neither in law, nor in mythic tradition either. Land ownership wasn't recognized in the first place, only right of habitation, and that was non-exclusive and granted on the basis of usufractry by common negotiation. There were violent episodes in history, but not for land, nor was the conclusion of a battle considered "legal" justification for just perching on that land forever after. If it were, the mission at San Jose would never have been permitted, they were badly outnumbered in the early years. But there was no customary law that would justify expelling the Spanish from the town; good neighbor, bad neighbor, the land wasn't anyone's to govern absolutely, and indeed there were no defined borders to apply governance within.

And why do you feel that a "counterfactual mythic history" is a good, sound basis for making any kind of claim, anyway? Like you sound really dismissive of these justifications, but you are also using them. So that's pretty odd. What are you arguing for here?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,710
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
A fun (and semi-serious) twist to put on the issue is the rights of non-human animals.

Another (more serious) twist to put on the issue is a community that needs to conquer or disperse. For example, if everyone in say, Venezuela, is starving to death, do they have the right to invade Colombia or Brazil? If the U.S. has a biological imperative to invade Canada, are they within their rights to do so?

On some level we're starting to talk about my human rights vs your human rights. Fundamentally, there is a conflict.

What, liebensraum then? Do you agree that it's okay to kill people to make more room for yourself?

No, I mentioned the biological imperative. The question was: if I'm starving to death, and those over the border are doing fine, is it a moral imperative for me to die without defending my life?

This exposes one of the important intricacies of the argument: there is what's legal, and then there is what's essential. Survival, for humans, is the basic imperative, and will trump what has been enshrined into law.

Sure, I don't disagree that European conquest was problematic, what I'm doing is reversing the context. If a nation is established, prosperous, stable - do others who can't prosper in their own communities have a right to that land?
If what you say is true, then it doesn't matter whether they have a right to it or not, yes?

Sounds like a recipe for violent anarchy to me.
 
Top Bottom