4 ms·
This argument could be extended to literally any people, at any time in history who explored, conquered, annexed or founded a colony/country on a parcel of land
by xacaxulu 12y ago
This argument could be extended to literally any people, at any time in history who explored, conquered, annexed or founded a colony/country on a parcel of land that had been explored or lived on before. Franks, Gauls, Nordic vikings, Indo-Europeans, Phoenecians, Romans. They're all in the same club of explorers, navigators, warriors, tradesman, etc. It's also a major logical fallacy to assign current moral/ethical mores to a totally different time and place in history. "But it was bad that the Aztecs ripped hearts out of innocent virgins." Yeah, it was insanely horrible, but at the time that act kept the earth spinning and the gods happy (in their belief system). Want to go back in time and make the argument against that?
- afarrell 12y agoSo generally, if you buy something from a burglar which belonged to someone else until some act of violence, the law does not recognize your ownership over the property but instead would demand you return it to its original owner. For practical purposes, it doesn't make sense to give that land back wholesale. But it is relevant to, for example, a Libertarian reading Robert Nozick and claiming that he has a moral right to his property because it was originally claimed legally and then transferred through a chain of non-coersive transactions.