6 ms·
That's like the Cuba buying Florida from the USA. Floridians wouldn't consider that "legal" People can't be legally bought and sold.
by gowld 3y ago
That's like the Cuba buying Florida from the USA. Floridians wouldn't consider that "legal"
People can't be legally bought and sold.
- rfw300 3y agoIronic, considering the United States literally purchased Florida from Spain.
- ethbr1 3y agoYeah, but it wasn't like there were pre-existing inhabitants in the Americas at that time. /HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE
- bluish29 3y agoIs that suppose to be some sort of sarcasm I'm missing, or you just ignore Indigenous people? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Amer...
- saghm 3y agoNot sure if the comment was edited or not, but "/s" is often used as a shorthand for indicating sarcasm due to it not being easy to infer tone in text, so "/HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE" is intended mean that you should read their comment in as sarcastic a tone as possible. So yes, they were being sarcastic.
- bluish29 3y agoThanks for clarification. That was new to me.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoThe “/HEAVIEST-S-POSSIBLE” is an extension of “/s” which is used as an explicit indicator of sarcasm.
- bluish29 3y agoThanks for clarification
- olex 3y agoAnd Alaska from Russia.
- JohnFen 3y agoI don't think that buying land is the same as buying people.
- lnenad 3y agoOk, I am buying your house from your neighbor then.
- JohnFen 3y agoIf you did, you still wouldn't own me. You'd just be in league to steal my house.
- indigochill 3y agoThe line is kinda blurry when the land houses people who have no representation in the sale. Sure, you don't own the people, but you now own their land.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 3y ago> you don't own the people, but you now own their land. Right -- that line doesn't seem blurry to me at all.
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoLand and territory can. If people don't like their new citizenship, they can leave.
- burke 3y agoLegality is a concept defined by the governments doing the things. It's funny to see people react to something they perceive as immoral and just claim it's illegal. I'm no legal expert but I'm reasonably confident one or both of Florida and the USA would find that to be an illegal transaction. Presumably Britain and Mauritius did not, at the time.
- vidarh 3y agoHowever the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 and the ICK has in recent years come to the same conclusion, so in this case there is actual evidence to support that it was illegal.
- sgjohnson 3y ago> However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are almost universally ignored. The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
- vidarh 3y agoThe combination of the UN and the ICJ does however make it entirely reasonable to describe it as illegal, and that was the point I was addressing in response to a post implying people picked something they see as immoral and "just claim it's illegal". In this case the claim of illegality is backed up by a court the UK was one of the original proponents of, that the UK has presided over, that the UK was the first state to submit a case to. As such, whether or not the decision is enforceable it's quite a bit more than "just claiming it's illegal".
- pseudalopex 3y ago> The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are. The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoHow do you see the relationship between war and legality? The US acquired territory from Mexico as part of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, intended to end the Mexican-American war. Mexico lost 55% of its territory, but did receive $15M as some sort of compensation. Is that legal and if so in what sense, given that it was driven by a desire to end a war? Much more recently, how about territory acquired by Russia in the vicinity of Ukraine. Suppose that the Crimeans truly did unanimously agree to this, would that make it legal? Is it legal if 50% of the residents agree? What about those with economic interests there who are not residents?
- ethbr1 3y agoIn modern times, the rule has been that a nation's territory can only be permanently sold with the consent of its government, and that government constitutes the sole authority whose agreement is needed. Sub-areas within a nation may secede and form their own nations, but recognition of the new nations by peer nations is required for legitimacy. So from that perspective: Mexico, agreed to by the government and done. Crimea, not consented by the Ukrainian government, and an open question as to peer recognition of independence (or now incorporation into Russia). The grey areas (e.g. ceding land under duress) are why land has historically been the chief casus belli.
- KaiserPro 3y ago> People can't be legally bought and sold. Bonded labour is still a thing, something that built a large amount of the middle east and parts of china.