4 ms·

Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology. Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity.

defrost 9mo ago
Why indeed. And yet: https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA... The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished. ~ https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case
- YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
  Did I say that? I just said no one wants to give power over their land. Countries would want international law to protect them. That's why international law exists. I don't think there is any country which explicitly mentions that international law would supersede their law.
  - defrost 9mo ago
    The initial statement was: * " Land belongs to people who can control it, and always has." * @watwut asserted: "Nazi says that, yes." * @YetAnotherNick expanded on that "Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology." * @YetAnotherNick then "asked" (perhaps rhetorically) "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity." * @defrost provided an example of a legal doctrine that returned significant areas of land to original first inhabitants after that land had been claimed by others with crown troops. Now that land belongs to people that lack force to control it, and it was given to them by people that considered it their land by colonisation. If you're interested in the answer to the question you posed "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity." (which isn't entirely well posed) then perhaps the reasoning of the judges in the Mabo case might give you some insight into their thinking.
    - YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
      Just to reiterate, countries want protection without giving up power. International law is middle ground where countries get protection by giving up some power. Can you specify which part are you disagreeing with rather than give AI powered summary of thread.
  - disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
    > I don't think there is any country which explicitly mentions that international law would supersede their law. All EU countries agree on the supremacy of EU law, so that's not quite correct.
watwut 9mo ago
Communists did not had that as a cornerstone ideology the way nazi had. For nazi this was one of the core beliefs. Exactly as it is for Trump. Communists seen themselves in ideological fight and communist leadership was also about giving power to "politically motivated entity".

defrost 9mo ago

Why indeed. And yet: https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/23.html https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA... The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius on which British claims to possession of Australia were justified on a wrongful legal presumption that Indigenous peoples had no settled law governing occupation and use of lands. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished. ~ https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case

YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
Did I say that? I just said no one wants to give power over their land. Countries would want international law to protect them. That's why international law exists. I don't think there is any country which explicitly mentions that international law would supersede their law.
- defrost 9mo ago
  The initial statement was: * " Land belongs to people who can control it, and always has." * @watwut asserted: "Nazi says that, yes." * @YetAnotherNick expanded on that "Communist say that too as do socialist as do almost all ideology." * @YetAnotherNick then "asked" (perhaps rhetorically) "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity." * @defrost provided an example of a legal doctrine that returned significant areas of land to original first inhabitants after that land had been claimed by others with crown troops. Now that land belongs to people that lack force to control it, and it was given to them by people that considered it their land by colonisation. If you're interested in the answer to the question you posed "Why do anyone want to give their power in your land to any other politically motivated entity." (which isn't entirely well posed) then perhaps the reasoning of the judges in the Mabo case might give you some insight into their thinking.
  - YetAnotherNick 9mo ago
    Just to reiterate, countries want protection without giving up power. International law is middle ground where countries get protection by giving up some power. Can you specify which part are you disagreeing with rather than give AI powered summary of thread.
- disgruntledphd2 9mo ago
  > I don't think there is any country which explicitly mentions that international law would supersede their law. All EU countries agree on the supremacy of EU law, so that's not quite correct.

watwut 9mo ago

Communists did not had that as a cornerstone ideology the way nazi had. For nazi this was one of the core beliefs. Exactly as it is for Trump. Communists seen themselves in ideological fight and communist leadership was also about giving power to "politically motivated entity".