|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Attn: Political Forum Residents; Cc: Enlil; chopstick [Re: Enlil]
#28394997 - 07/14/23 05:12 AM (6 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
MadMuncher said: re: land ownership and acquisition.
dear enlil,
obviously land can not be owned but play along. how does a nation acquire land (other than violence)? are there established and respectable or even "lawful" processes for nations to acquire more land (other than violence)?
dearly,
-mm
Purchase, discovery, creation, and treaty.
States do eminent domain. Does the federal government still do that? I could see legitimate reasons like interstate highways, and controversial cases for mining/energy. With the latter, it's frequently already federal land that that gets "rezoned" from protected natural areas to probably leased. Seems like small areas of land involved compared to the old days; parts of Alaska could be an exception.
Discovery in continental U.S. is about exhausted, and purchase for fair price is expensive.
3rd world is a different story (or maybe not). The governments may be that needy and/or corrupt. Not sure what the arrangements are, e.g., for destroying the Amazon rain forests.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,340
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Attn: Political Forum Residents; Cc: Enlil; chopstick [Re: MadMuncher]
#28395031 - 07/14/23 06:16 AM (6 months, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: Violence can be a part of any of those things on the list, though. It doesn't have to be, but it can be. Besides, you specifically asked for a list of ways "other than violence." Violence is still a legitimate and viable way of acquiring and holding land.
Authority can exist without violence or threat thereof. Power requires violence or a threat of violence, however.
Quote:
MadMuncher said: i was going to post that same thing 
do the rules apply or not? violence is against the rules. come on now
While some disagree, the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force/violence is accepted. The exception would be when the state's own legitimacy is highly questioned. Political squabbles and culture war has people here questioning the government's legitimacy more than I can ever remember including the 1960's. But it's almost entirely just a conversation topic. Middle class decline or not, we have it way to good to challenge the system. That's a topic for another day.
I completely agree with Enlil's statement that power requires violence or the threat of violence. Although force might be a better term. The threat of imprisoning people may be just as effectively coercive as killing them. But the statement, authority can exist without violence or threat thereof, depends heavily on the word "can". Ultimately, I think, authority requires potentially forceful consequences to those defying authority.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
|