4 ms·

Land can’t be stolen, only conquered when sovereigns are involved. Whichever sovereign has physical possession (rule and defense) of the land has a stronger cl

Land can’t be stolen, only conquered when sovereigns are involved. Whichever sovereign has physical possession (rule and defense) of the land has a stronger claim to it than the other who simply says it’s theirs but are unable to rule it. You aren’t a sovereign if you don’t rule within your claimed borders.

yawpitch 3y ago
Conquering land is, definitionally, taking possession of a real asset by force from another who had prior possession of that same asset… in other words it’s identical in meaning to theft, hence conquered land is stolen land, unless that land had no prior occupants. QED. This is, of course, notwithstanding the fact that wars of conquest are illegal in our modern system of international law precisely because they represent an act intended to steal another nation’s sovereign territory… you seem to thing such wars become legal if the invaded party doesn’t successfully prevent the invasion from starting at all. Yes, the de facto situation is that successfully prosecuting a genocide means successfully stealing land, as happened in what became the USA, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the land was very definitely (in the case of the USA both de facto and de jure) stolen.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Why does a sovereign have unconditional ownership in perpetuity of a real asset? Nobody owns land by virtue of being on it or saying they own it. Another sovereign making a claim to the land is valid and puts ownership in dispute. The 2 parties have multiple ways to resolve the dispute with war being a mechanism if others paths are unsuccessful. Yes, wars of conquest are "illegal" today but that's not a real thing - it's just a declaration by some group of humans who wish it to be. They certainly weren't "illegal" in previous times so any land acquired then is clearly not "stolen".

yawpitch 3y ago

Conquering land is, definitionally, taking possession of a real asset by force from another who had prior possession of that same asset… in other words it’s identical in meaning to theft, hence conquered land is stolen land, unless that land had no prior occupants. QED. This is, of course, notwithstanding the fact that wars of conquest are illegal in our modern system of international law precisely because they represent an act intended to steal another nation’s sovereign territory… you seem to thing such wars become legal if the invaded party doesn’t successfully prevent the invasion from starting at all. Yes, the de facto situation is that successfully prosecuting a genocide means successfully stealing land, as happened in what became the USA, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the land was very definitely (in the case of the USA both de facto and de jure) stolen.

nemo44x 3y ago
Why does a sovereign have unconditional ownership in perpetuity of a real asset? Nobody owns land by virtue of being on it or saying they own it. Another sovereign making a claim to the land is valid and puts ownership in dispute. The 2 parties have multiple ways to resolve the dispute with war being a mechanism if others paths are unsuccessful. Yes, wars of conquest are "illegal" today but that's not a real thing - it's just a declaration by some group of humans who wish it to be. They certainly weren't "illegal" in previous times so any land acquired then is clearly not "stolen".