BigBallinStalin wrote:patches70 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:patches70 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Basically, this is a story where ARG declares its own sovereignty and claims lands which its military could not prevent foreign armed forces from taking. The question becomes: "is right by conquest legitimate?"
Given history, the answer to that question is a resounding "yes".....
Think of it this way: if my friends and I busted into your family's house, shot your parents and asked them to leave, would I then have a legitimate claim to your property?
In the absence of any police or governing body to intervene and I lack the will to kill you and your bushwacking friends? Yep, the property is now yours. At least until someone else comes along and takes the house from you and your friends.....
Wait, why do your parents lose their legitimate claim to their property if they lack effective enough means of rightfully reclaiming it?
If you have a legitimate claim to property, it's still your property until you voluntarily exchange the property rights to someone else. Exchanges made under duress aren't legitimate; otherwise, there would be no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate...
You can make whatever laws, contracts or agreements you want, but if you don't have the ability or the will to back up those claims with force, then you don't really have anything, do you?
In society, we have courts, police and such. When nations start squabbling over territories, which ever side has the military and the will to use it will end up with that territory and then call it "legal" after the fact.
Just sayin' is all, the use of force has been used throughout history to solve these little problems over territory. The contracts and property rights you speak of are enforced and maintained by the threat of force by police at the order of courts.
Does not the US hold the Philippines, Guam (hell, even Hawaii) and other holdings that were obtain through conquering?
Did not England have vast territories through conquer back in the day? Israel with the West Bank, won through spoils of war? That conquering by it's very act makes the claim "legitimate".
Is not the UK ignoring the supposed "lawful body" that has ordered them to the negotiating table? What good is the UN making decrees if they lack the will or the ability to back up their decrees with force?
Violence, solving disputes since man first walked upright.
Force, the will and ability to use it, is the basis for which all things are "legitimate".