Whom does a land belong to?

[XT]

[QUOTE=The Sheikh]
Palestine is a name of a hard test where human values can be evaluated.
[/QUOTE]

Definitely…between those who strap explosives on themselves and walk into crowded shopping malls or onto buses full of civilians…and those who don’t choose to act in such a way. Between those who randomly toss rockets at civilian towns…and those who don’t do such things. It’s a difficult test, but it really separates the people into definite categories, don’t you agree?

I think that you all skipped the word “SHOULD”. I don’t want you to explain the complications of politics for me. I know politics is about power. Ethics is only a makeup in politics. And that’s not what I want to discuss. Ethics is what I want to discuss.

‘SHOULD’? What is this ‘SHOULD’? I don’t even know how to evaluate who should or shouldn’t own anything. Should poor people be poor, or should they be rich? And if so, then should rich people be poor? Why? Should an evil person be killed and a good person let live? Who decides what is evil and good…and how do they control fate and luck?

Ethics? Well, if we are going with who deserves to live in Palestine (since that’s what you REALLY want to talk about, obviously), then I’d say it’s pretty much a toss up. The natives to the region certainly did some fairly heinous things both before and after the establishment of Israel…and that would be the natives of all religions, including the native Jews who lived in the area long before Israel was founded. So…deserve? Gods know. They are all so, you know, HUMAN…and so ‘deserve’ doesn’t really factor in. Ethics? What are these ‘ethics’ thingies you talk about and how do you even evaluate such things. Do you weigh who has done the most heinous things and then say that they are obviously less ethical?

How would your “Utopia” look like? What would be the fairest way of distributing land and resources among the people of earth?

My ‘Utopia’ would involve a human species reaching for the stars and devoting all it’s energy to outward expansion and preservation of the species. Well, that and perhaps myself as God Emperor, being fanned on a nice beach by scantily clad love muffins pealing me grapes and similar things along those lines. I don’t believe that there IS a ‘fairest way of distributing land and resources among the people of earth’, to be honest. The universe isn’t ‘fair’. Shit happens. We simply do the best we can. Based on the past, shitty as things might seem today they are nearly infinitely better and more ‘fair’ today than they have ever been in the history of our species…and if things keep going the way they are, they are probably going to get more ‘fair’ in the future. About as ‘fair’ as is possible.

-XT

[John_Mace]

@The_Sheikh

Palestine is a name of a hard test where human values can be evaluated.

Oh, well that sure clears thing up…

I think that you all skipped the word “SHOULD”.

No, we didn’t.

But since you know so much, why don’t you tell us what you think instead of just throwing out questions.

[The_Sheikh]

@John_Mace

But since you know so much, why don’t you tell us what you think instead of just throwing out questions.

I think humanity should now reach its pinnacle by eliminating borders and neutralizing religion. People should have the right to live and own land wherever they wish. And resources should be shared wisely among all the people of earth. So, I have the right to own a cottage by the river in the US. And the oil in my country is not controlled by my local government. Jews have the right to gather in the place they like to call Israel, and Palestinians have the right to gather in the place they like to call Palestine. Starving people in Africa have the right to escape death and seek life wherever they wish.

[Argent_Towers]

@The_Sheikh

Palestine is a name of a hard test where human values can be evaluated.

LOL.

Why did you choose Palestine for this test out of all the other countries on the planet?

Could it have something to do with joos?

[yelimS]

@ataraxy22

All your lands are belong to us.

Q.E.D.

And yet, 36 posts later, we’re still here?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Whoever lawfully owns the property.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Whoever lawfully owns the property.

According to whose laws? If your law says you own it and someone else’s says you don’t, what then?

[XT]

Then you will have to have a cage match to settle things I suppose…

-XT

[Lemur866]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Whoever lawfully owns the property.

Where do laws come from? Laws are created by human beings. Property law was not handed down to Moses chiseled onto stone tablets. In North Korea they have one system of law, in South Korea they have another, and in Papua New Guinea they have another. So just appealing to “whatever the law says” don’t work so well.

[Odesio]

@Trinopus

Way too big a question. You might as well ask, “What is good?”

That’s easy. To defeat your enemy, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women. Sheesh. Ask something hard.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Argent_Towers

LOL.

Why did you choose Palestine for this test out of all the other countries on the planet?

Could it have something to do with joos?

Why are you asking this? Does he have a history of having issues with Jewish-related issues?

[Argent_Towers]

When people single out Israel, and only Israel, as the one example of a “hard test” of “human values”, then yeah, I think they have a problem with the Jews. Out of ALL the countries in the world that are doing bad things, you single out the one Jewish country? Why is it so hard for people to understand?

[Guinastasia]

@The_Sheikh

I think humanity should now reach its pinnacle by eliminating borders and neutralizing religion. People should have the right to live and own land wherever they wish. And resources should be shared wisely among all the people of earth. So, I have the right to own a cottage by the river in the US. And the oil in my country is not controlled by my local government. Jews have the right to gather in the place they like to call Israel, and Palestinians have the right to gather in the place they like to call Palestine. Starving people in Africa have the right to escape death and seek life wherever they wish.

And while you’re at it, I’d like a pony.

[Darth_Panda]

Conquest gives a title which the courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim which has been successfully asserted… The claims have been maintained and established… by the sword…

The title by conquest is acquired and maintained by force. The conqueror prescribes the limits. Humanity, however, acting on public opinion, has established, as a general rule, that the conquered shall not be wantonly oppressed, and that their condition shall remain as eligible as is compatible with the objects of conquest. Most usually, they are incorporated with the victorious nation, and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected…

But the tribes of the Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose chief occupation was war… to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.

What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity of either abandoning the country, and relinquishing their pompous claims to it, or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix, and who could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighborhood, and exposing themselves and their families to perpetual hazard of being massacred.

Frequent and bloody wars… unavoidably ensued…

That law which regulates, and ought to regulate in general, the relations between the conqueror and conquered, was incapable of application to a people under such circumstances. The resort to some new and different rule, better adapted to the actual state of things, was unavoidable. Every rule which can be suggested will be found to be attended with great difficulty.

However extravagant the pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country has been acquired and held under it; if the property of the great mass of the community originates in it, it becomes the law of the land, and cannot be questioned.

Chief Justice Marshall
Jonhnson v. M’Intosh
21 US (8 Wheat) 543, 1823

[foolsguinea]

1. Men arguing over who owns the land are like fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

2. When Alexander died, he was asked who would inherit his empire. His answer? “The strong.”

[Lust4Life]

You have two couples living next door to each other, they both have the same jobs, with the same incomes, at the same company, and they both own one car.

As time goes on couple A have two children as does couple B.

As time goes on couple B have two more, and then another couple and then another couple

Neither of the families have had a pay rise, so couple B are struggling financially, also with the number of children that they have, their house and garden are a mess.

The situation is that couple A have %50 of the cars in the street though theres only four of them, while couple B have the other %50 shared between the eight of them.

Is this a fair division of the resources ?

Should couple A give part of their wage to couple B because they have less people to spend it on ?

Or maybe allow some of the chidren from family B to live in their house, though of course this may mean that their quality of life will be significantly lowered ?

It doesn’t seem fair does it that the A’s have a comfortable life while the B’s are having a crappy one.

Or maybe the B’s should stop making excuses and take responsibility for their own actions?

Wealthy countries usually, but not always, have made their countries well off by their own actions, not by some stroke of luck or whatever.

And spare me the “Oh the wicked Europeans stole all of the third world countries resources”.

What exactly did they steal?

The products of subsistance farmers for example ?

I don’t think so somehow.

Or maybe they stole mineral wealth that the locals couldn’t locate, couldn’t access if they could locate it, and couldn’t utilise if they could have got it out of the ground.

Oil and Tungsten aren’t all that useful if you haven’t invented the internal combustion engine or have industry.

If the wicked whitemen hadn’t come then the mineral resources would still be untouched underground to this very day and for the forseeable future.

Or maybe its stealing from them, developing wasteland that has lain untouched for all of living memory into highly productive farmland ?

Depends on your point of view I suppose.

Just as the continually poor countries aren’t poor because of their climate, or their soil, or being picked on by other countries, or by bad luck, but by their own actions, or more usually by their own corruption, and lack of action.

(Look at Iceland for eample, good standard of living, well educated population, but an appalling climate, not overloaded with natural resources and located in the back of the beyond)

Lets go for our own personal instant gratification, rather then look to the long term.
Lets dish out the goodies to our friends and families, and everyone else can grab what THEY can eh ?

And then afterwards complain bitterly that the rich countries aren’t helping them enough.

That, without of course explaining where all the tens of Billions of dollars given to them in aid have disappeared to, on top of the advice and education given to them for free.

The fact is that the self inflicted poor nations and nationalities have ethically or morally, no automatic entitlement to that which others have earned.