what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property? — EricH

You're making an unfounded assumption, in fact this question commits the complex question fallacy. By asking for "...rules..." you're already assuming that there are such rules but that, as history will attest to, is an utter falsehood - the entire history of humankind, though it began peaceably I suspect, is that of conquest. Conquest is, as we all know, an euphemism for wanton killing, extreme violence, genocide, and so on. We would be doing ourselves a big favor to heed Cicero who in a moment of deep insight uttered the words, Inter arma enim silent lēgēs (in times of war, the laws fall silent), you know, just in case history repeats itself.

All is fair in love and war — John Lyly (Euphues)

:lol:

By asking for "...rules..." you're already assuming that there are such rules — TheMadFool

I thought it was clear that I was asking "Are there any rules?" but obviously not.

My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct.

By asking for "...rules..." you're already assuming that there are such rules but that, as history will attest to, is an utter falsehood - — TheMadFool

The fact that there aren't any rules doesn't mean that no rules can be established now or in the future. Or that we can't discuss the possibility.

My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct. — EricH

Well put, sir/madam, well put! A gold star to you for your eloquence.

The fact that there aren't any rules doesn't mean that no rules can be established now or in the future. Or that we can't discuss the possibility — Apollodorus

My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct. — EricH

My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct. — EricH

Come on, EricH. How can we be philosophers if we are too afraid to get out of bed in the morning?

As they say, where there is a will there is a way. We can't give up before we've at least tried.

So what you've done here is to pull out certain types of offenses, namely property related ones, and declared them not subject to moral analysis. So the argument goes: Theft in my country may be different than yours, but there is no objective right and wrong when it comes to theft. I assume you draw no distinction between real property issues (like who land belongs to) and personal property issues (like who a loaf of bread belongs to). — Hanover

How odd.

Ought you keep your promises? Of course. Hence keeping promises has a moral aspect. Yet promises are as much a social convention as is property.

That property is a social convention does not obviously render it amoral. You'll need more argument here.

That property is a social convention does not obviously render it amoral. You'll need more argument here. — Banno

It has the word 'social' in it? :snicker:

They are no other!

And let all men say what they will, so long as such are rulers as call the land theirs, upholding this particular propriety of mine and thine, the common people shall never have their liberty, nor the land be ever freed from troubles, oppressions, and complainings, by reason whereof the Creator of all things is continually provoked...
— Gerald Winstanley

https://www.diggers.org/digger_tracts.htm

But there you go; as white and Christian and historical as you could possibly wish for, and within a cannon shot of where I was born. — unenlightened

I let my vindictive self loose on the forums again. :confused:

I don't require white & christian stuff - while I like much in the christian framework, its only one of many frameworks I find helpful, and I integrate it with other stuff. (even now, repentant, I have to point out that my recent upsurge of christian-talk was to reply, in the same genre, to the christian tack you introduced on the other thread.) And it seems to me - though I'm not well-schooled- that there is a lot really good native american thought on these matters; I'm only objecting to projecting onto a non-western culture (over-and-above what they actually say) the inverse of the dominant threads of western culture

Now that I've defended my honor, I do apologize for the way I came into this thread.

They are no other? Are we a single amorphous mass of humanity like a big fat jellyfish floating on the world ocean? Maybe that's how proponents of world government want us to see ourselves. But I doubt that's the way forward.

@EricH, what would be your opinion on that?

They are no other? Are we a single amorphous mass of humanity like a big fat jellyfish floating on the world ocean? — Apollodorus

That was me. Less of that 'we' while you are denying the connectedness of this highly social species, though admittedly not as highly social as a jellyfish colony. But the separation of cultures is a matter of education, not biology.

Now that I've defended my honor, — csalisbury

Your Honour is in no danger from me, and you are quite right to point out the spurious attribution. I should be more careful when straying from my formal education topics.

___________________________________________________________

But anyway, property (real estate) as has been mentioned, is a social construct. Accordingly, where there is conflict between cultures, one cannot simply have recourse to "the facts". For instance, the claim of ownership by reason of being first people is a cultural construction. The first people may have no concept of land ownership, or an inverted one where people belong to the land not land to people.

And this can be used by a culture of real estate agents to claim the land for themselves as if a culture that is not so possessive doesn't have any status at all in the matter.

I am assuming you're talking about Palestine and Israel. I think it might come down to the nature of the claim to the land. Personally I think nobody should own land that is considered "holy" or of religious historic value. Not lived on. Just held as a tourist destination without current financial interests.

Personally I think nobody should own land that is considered "holy" or of religious historic value. Not lived on. Just held as a tourist destination without current financial interests. — TiredThinker

That's how I feel about the commons. Wilderness "untrammeled by man" is sacred, holy, to me.

Personally I think nobody should own land that is considered "holy" or of religious historic value. Not lived on. Just held as a tourist destination without current financial interests.
— TiredThinker

That's how I feel about the commons. Wilderness "untrammeled by man" is sacred, holy, to me. — James Riley

That's how I feel about the whole world. But some folks worship property, I think it's called "capitalism". To them the commons is a tragedy.

I think it's called "capitalism". To them the commons is a tragedy. — unenlightened

:100:

They are not as important as they think they are.

Once upon a time there were old growth forests in the United States. These trees had grown for hundreds, if not thousands of years, through many types of weather and climate. They grew slow, with tight, hard, clear, straight grains, making the best wood for many different types of construction. But the best of all, for the trees themselves. Unlike the youthful trees, having grown with initial spirts of twenty or thirty years, with their soft wood, widely spaced, including knots from eager limbs, marring the best of what they would become, over and beyond, several hundred years hence, these old trees are the envy of some. The young ones are called, by the older loggers "toothpick timber."

A man, rich beyond all imagination, wanting the best, not because he knows the difference, but simply because he will ask another, an expert, “What is the best? I want it. Get me the best, I have the money, I have the demand. I deserve it! Our system says so.” This man is, irretrievably, a villain. He doesn’t think so, of course. And his defenders, and the defenders of the system that allowed him to be, will all try to justify his externalized cost, his demand. But think about it: Why should anyone who doesn’t know any better insist on settling only for the best? They will never appreciate the tree beyond mere money. They will insist the man who loves the old tree should outbid him, and make the tree his own, if he wants it to live.

Otherwise, cut it down, and build my deck! He will then show his deck to a few friends, describing it, pinky-finger extended from a glass of wine, over cheese and crackers. Once. And that will be the end of it. He will forget. He will be back to his other property, with deck forgotten. Tree, forgotten. The forest from which it came, forgotten. The people who wanted to save the tree, laughed at, and then forgotten.

He is not important. Fuck him. The system that would exalt him above a tree, above a forest, above others who love without money, fuck it. Die! Fertilize a tree with your rotting carcass.

Come, philosophers, and tell me: Why should I care about him and his system? Because they will have my back? Because they will charge me with hypocrisy for my failings? I’m sorry, but I don’t demand the best when I wouldn’t even know the difference. Why should I want to know, when less than best is more than good enough. I've no need to value a deck.

This is just to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion. As I expected, there is no mechanism to neutrally resolve these issue. It appears that we (i.e. mankind) will have to muddle through and endure these conflicts for generations to come.

That said, there are a few rays of optimism floating around - the conflict on Northern Ireland - while not resolved - seems to have settled down into an uneasy accommodation. In New Zealand the national government seems to be making some good faith efforts to acknowledge & compensate for past wrongs.

But these are the exceptions.

Just to pick out the most currently visible situation in the news - I see no hope for resolving the Israel-Palestine dilemma. I would gladly be wrong - it would make me very happy to be wrong - but I foresee this cycle of violence & revenge continuing for centuries.

The best we can hope for is that these conflicts can be locally contained.

That said, there are a few rays of optimism floating around - the conflict on Northern Ireland - while not resolved - seems to have settled down into an uneasy accommodation. — EricH

Until Brexit happened! And a border is needed in a place people wouldn't want there to be a border.

At least they're not chucking missiles at each other - yet. But yes.

My proposal to North Ireland would be the following:

1) UK grants North Ireland independence
2) Ireland recognizes the independence of North Ireland.

Result: Guess how betrayed the tiny faction of North Irelanders who are the warmongering and violence promoting type, who support the violence, be they those of the really-real IRA or those Loyalists marching with silly hats, when their own country has let them down! All this fighting for nothing! When Dublin and London jointly gives them the "We don't fucking care"-middle finger, at least they would share something in common.

But seriously, would Ireland really want North Ireland? All those loyalist paramilitaries that would be a pain in the ass if Northern Ireland became part of Ireland. And if the UK would brush aside North Ireland, then no worries about "The time of Troubles" coming ever back. The UK would be a far happier place.

Interesting thread. Thanks for bringing it back. :up:

But seriously, would Ireland really want North Ireland? All those loyalist paramilitaries that would be a pain in the ass if Northern Ireland became part of Ireland. And if the UK would brush aside North Ireland, then no worries about "The time of Troubles" coming ever back. The UK would be a far happier place. — ssu

ssu, of course, Ireland wants Ulster back to theirs. The unification of all the island has been one of the 'undone' tasks since 1922 when the Irish got independence from the UK. As well as I have provided arguments about Russia, I would say the same in favour of the Irish people. It is obvious that Ulster is both culturally and politically 'Gaelic'.
@EricH said that at least they are not chucking missiles at each other. They are both members of NATO, and civilised countries which prefer to resolve the conflicts diplomatically.

On the other hand, the Unionist are a small number if we compare them with the Sinn Féin. The number of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly is 90. 27 of them are covered by the Sinn Féin, plus 'Social Democratic and Labour Party', which are republicans (8 seats). And, 'Alliance Party of Northern Ireland' which are pro-european and leftists (17 seats).

The 1998 Belfast agreement said: that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom;
that a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland.

What is the situation 25 years later? On current trends, Northern Ireland will leave the Union 'The figures instead indicate that the liberals from Protestant backgrounds who helped deliver the region’s 56% vote for Remain had already identified as Irish or Northern Irish rather than British.'

It is a question of identity!

My sincere hope is that the Ireland situation gets resolved without yet more violence or threats of violence. But I feel that way about Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine, Turkey/Kurds, etc etc etc.

Are there any geopolitical / moral / philosophical rules (or mechanism) that could allow us to resolve these situations? Does the land belong to the original inhabitants? If yes, then should everyone around the globe migrate back to their genetic place of origin? Sort of impractical, yes. Plus it does not allow for any changes to take place.

I wish I had an answer.

Well, morally speaking, the UK betrayed Northern Ireland because of Brexit. They knew it was a sensitive problem to face if the referendum succeeded, but London didn't care. Afterwards, the divisional line between Belfast and Dublin was clearer and the problem arose again because of fees and financial matters. Yes, I am aware that some agreements have been reached. Yet, I think it will be interesting to make an enquiry into Northern Irish people and see what they think or feel. Most of the seats of the North Irish chamber are pro-European basically. So, this could only mean that they feel pro-Ireland.

It seems to me that, in terms of culture and values, they feel more attached to Ireland than ever...

The particulars of the N. Ireland situation are interesting and give some reasons to be optimistic that there's a non-violent resolution.

But is there anything about the N. Ireland situation that could be generalized and used to resolve the Ukraine situation?

That's the question I keep asking.

But is there anything about the N. Ireland situation that could be generalized and used to resolve the Ukraine situation? — EricH

It is a good, intelligent question. I wish I had precise arguments to answer your question, but I will give a try using the data and knowledge that I have.

It is very complex to juxtapose the N. Ireland conflict with the Ukraine-Russia war. The first conflict had religious implications - Protestants vs Catholics - while Ukrainians and Russians share the same religion, orthodox. On the other hand, this was just an isle conflict, where the international arena was not interested enough because the conflict didn't have implications in other regions.

But, above all those characteristics, it is important to highlight the fact that the parties ended with the conclusion that both sides had to win, sooner or later. Despite the conflict, the representatives of each side understood the interests of the other.
The Good Friday Agreement says: The Agreement created a new power-sharing arrangement, including an Executive and Assembly, and was based on a series of fundamental principles including: the parity of esteem of both communities the principle of consent underpinning Northern Ireland’s constitutional status the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland to identify and be accepted as British or Irish, or both, and to hold both British and Irish citizenship The Belfast Agreement

As you can see, there was mutual respect. The only way to achieve peace, honestly. But, regarding the Ukrainian-Russian war, I do not see an ending if one of the sides ends up devastated. This is a war on destroying others. Nobody seems really interested in reaching peace like the representatives of Sein Feinn and the Unionists back in the 1990's.

Country borders may be artificial in a sense, like money or whatever conventions.
Yet, what side of a border you live on can matter.
North and South Korea comes to mind, also Finland and Russia, and maybe the recent Mexico → US migrant stories.
Arbitrary or not, there can be stark differences, and they matter to the affected people.

That being said, in a different sense ...

We have not merely been given the world from our parents, we are also borrowing it from our children. — some African proverb I think

Ownership is as fleeting as the lifetime of an owner.

Owning a piece of land won't matter to the owner once they're gone, if you will.
How the living treats each other is more pertinent, and country borders can mark a difference, which can be fairly important if one such country declares ownership of another.
UN resolutions aren't binding I think, however, they can indicate some principled decisions that one can look to.

ssu, of course, Ireland wants Ulster back to theirs. — javi2541997

Does the Irish government it really want to deal with the Ulster Loyalists? Protestants are still majority in Northern Ireland and the country is still very segregated. When high walls separate communities, there isn't much social cohesion.



Perhaps the majority wouldn't take up arms, but all it has to be is a few. How many dead Irish policemen or Irish military servicemen who now are enjoying a safe career is Northern Ireland worth? Or you think that the loyalist paramilitaries will just accept Irish rule after all the fighting? All it takes is a small cabal who know how to make bombs and there's blood on the streets of Dublin.

Secondly, Northern Ireland is the poorest part of the UK. And the Irish enjoy a higher GDP per capita than the UK. Hence Northern Ireland will be a huge drain of welfare payments from Ireland.

EricH said that at least they are not chucking missiles at each other. They are both members of NATO, and civilised countries which prefer to resolve the conflicts diplomatically. — javi2541997

More civilized than Turkey and Greece, I guess. But yes, one of NATO's reasons to exist is it's first article. Something we still do need in Europe.

It is a question of identity! — javi2541997

Yes. And the next generations can romanticize the past "Troubles".

Are there any geopolitical / moral / philosophical rules (or mechanism) that could allow us to resolve these situations? — EricH

There are political ones. And in war, one side can win the other. It's a very effective way to end the problematic situation.

Actually, we saw on problematic area gotten "solved" just a short time ago. With a quick decisive military attack Azerbaijan has taken over Nagorno-Karabakh and there is no Republic of Artsakh anymore. The Russia peacekeepers didn't lift a finger and Armenia didn't come to help as they already had lost the last war. Armenia should be the ally of Russia, but being an ally of Russia doesn't mean the same thing at all like being a NATO member.

Refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh arriving in Armenia.

Nearly the entire ethnic Armenian population has left Nagorno-Karabakh, as the first United Nations mission arrived in the largely deserted mountainous region on Sunday.

Stephane Dujarric, the spokesperson for the UN secretary general, said the United Nations team on the ground, the first UN mission to the region in 30 years, would “identify the humanitarian needs” both for people remaining and “the people that are on the move”.

Many of the Armenians who fled Nagorno-Karabkah said they felt the international mission’s visit came too late, after Azerbaijan reclaimed the area in a lightning military operation last month.

And that's the solution. You may not find it nice, I don't either, but that's how many times in history these things go down.

Might makes right.

Good points, ssu.

I agree that the Irish government doesn't seem to be interested in dealing with Unionists. But, if the separation of Ulster was a possible way, I think both governments would have had their conversations and treaties, as well as they did in the 1990s with the aim of stopping the conflict. It is important to consider that both sides have mutual respect, so I guess that a solution should be found sooner or later. I am not seeing it 'impossible', not like the difficult between Armenia and Azerbaijan, for example.

On the other hand, since when police officers - or public workers in overall - have been covered by the government? It will be a difficult situation, but with some differences, because the new generations of N. Ireland haven't been raised at the core of the conflict. They are the sons and daughters of the 1998 Belfast agreement. I don't think they would be as violent as their parents or grandparents.

Secondly, Northern Ireland is the poorest part of the UK. And the Irish enjoy a higher GDP per capita than the UK. Hence Northern Ireland will be a huge drain of welfare payments from Ireland. — ssu

I didn't know this. I understand your point, and yes, maybe Ireland is not really interested in the utopian union with N. Ireland due to financial matters, - apart from the rest of the social problems we both mentioned previously -

It is very complex to juxtapose the N. Ireland conflict with the Ukraine-Russia war. — javi2541997

You value free speech. You realize, yes? that if you wrote that in Russia you would be detained and questioned and possibly jailed, if not sent to the front. Are you saying, then, that it is a war?