3 ms·
That you make no distinction between those who are rich from business and those who did it via literal conquest and armies shows how futile and childish your po
by jabradoodle 4y ago
That you make no distinction between those who are rich from business and those who did it via literal conquest and armies shows how futile and childish your point is.
- _8j50 4y agoThat distinction is irrelevant because we are talking about the rule of law and administration if justice. If you invade a country and steal it's riches then it is that country's burden to exact justice against you by means of war or diplomacy. That is not the topic here. Much if britain got rich off of slavery and conquest yet it is the royal's riches that is being discussed here and the reason is not because it was unlawfully gained. It was abdolutley lawfully gained under the laws of that time. How you obtained wealth irrelevant so long as it was lawful. You can argue that invading countries was illegal at the time and the royal's broke the law and if that is correct I am with you on that. If is not then you are an even worse if a theif than they ever were because you are not only masquerading as an agent of justice when you are stealing just like they did but you are acting in hypocrisy as if you were better than them. And even if you were how silly if you to take wealth gained by conquest and give it to your people when it should go to all the countries from which it was stolen.
- jabradoodle 4y agoOkay so, let's say I overthrew the government, establish a dictatorship and then change the laws so I am the legal owner of the countries resources. This is now my property in perpetuity, since it was legal at the time when I, a dictator, decided on what the laws are?