United States Why are "squatter's rights" a thing?
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
The people will only ever revolt if people are allowed to have other sides, look at red China, they're basically a whole country of automaton bug people. You can indoctrinate and breed humans to do anything you want, just like with any critter.
If the Nazis won, and by 1980 every human in Europe shared their ideology and have been selectively bred for obedience, who's to say they AREN'T the legitimate ruler? We of course would disagree with that claim, but that doesn't matter when you're a drop in the ocean.
"Might makes Right" is an objective truth, but it's also an inconsiderate and destructive truth that has alternative solutions.
The ultimate weakness of might makes right is that it opens you up to the same process being done on yourselves, and you might not always be the bigger fish.
Poe
Well-known member
No I just reject the question as unrelated to the discussion. We're discussing the context of "stolen" land not being a thing here, not whatever derail you intended me to engage with.You sure do get confused easily. Or at least pretend to.
I replied directly to an argument you made. Other people get it, but you don't, mostly just because you refuse to, which you admit as much here. Kind of makes it that much more hilarious that you acted so indignant earlier. You're just buttmad that I pointed out something you hadn't given any thought to when you were too busy making your "might makes right" argument against Natives.
Poe
Well-known member
No it's an idiotic response which projects some line of thought that in no way follows. Those who hold land are the legitimate owners of it, this in no way implies that rebellion against bad governments is somehow wrong.
Hilarious considering the only one whos clearly upset here is you. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to take down a fact of reality by grasping at straws.
You didn't point out shit, I didn't give any thought to it because it isn't related to the discussion of if land can be "stolen" and others "geting it" doesn't change that. The act of rebellion isn't related to land ownership actually, but yes if rebels win then they become the rightful owners as that is how sovereignty works in the real world.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
The only reason why I don't buy might makes right is it's only every used by the offending party to excuse their actions. As soon as the tables turn they appeal to concepts like justice Mercy and fairness. Nobody just goes quietly in the night no matter how much they themselves preach that others do so "as nature intended."
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Basques, perhaps, and maybe the native Irish, Welsh and Scots. But that depends on definition of "native".
In fact, genetically speaking, majority of native populations of European countries are truly native - as in, "we had been here since we came as Cromagnons and murdered Neandarthals" level of native.
But majority of them did not maintain their culture, because small groups of warrior-culture conquerors tend to have massive ability to overwrite local culture. English are still some 90% Celts genetically, but English language originates from Anglo-Saxon language, and culture is predominantly Germanic.
It is only in modern times that immigration could become massive enough to become an actual genocide.
Other ideologies also open you to "might makes right" however. It is just that your conquerors may decide not to opt for "might" if there are cheaper ways of screwing you into every orifice.
That's true, but if you don't operate on 'might makes right', its a lot more likely that other nations will come to your aid to mutually remove a 'might makes right' threat.
...With might.
It's a false problem. A problem made up by those who disagree with the statement already, but doesn't exist in the heads of those who do pose the "might makes right" problem.
Did Mongols ask about whether any of the countries they invaded subscribe to "might makes right" before deciding to invade them, and relented if they didn't?
Did Romans? Spanish Empire? Caliphates? Ottoman Empire? Nazis? Communists?
The reality is that all countries are opened up for invasion by those who believe might makes right regardless of their own opinion on the matter, unless they are too hard to invade that is.
The precedent logic is just simply completely missing the point if you apply it to some scenarios.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
True. In the end however, going to either extreme is lethally stupid. You always have to prepare for invasion by people who do believe in the "might makes right" philosophy. And that means investing in might.
I don't remember seeing the great 2020's Mongol Empire. Or the Romans, or the Spanish, and so on. Evidently their line of thinking isn't very successful long-term.
Some of them longer term than anyone else lol. Yet states like this post the main "might makes right" problem yet couldn't care less about their target's opinion on it.
The philosophical precedent argument exists only in the heads of people who are against "might makes right" to begin with.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Roman Empire however didn't rely solely on "might makes right". It lasted for as long as it did because it basically didn't give a shit about what its subjects did with their lives so long as taxes arrived on time and no rebellions cropped up.
Yet they made them subjects still.
DarthOne
☦️
Yeah and that caught up to them with decadence, corruption and moral decay. You have to keep at least some control or guard rails.
Virtue is the harder choice. Rot is easy. People will take the easy option if they think they can get away with it and it’s not going to immediately screw them.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Decadence, corruption and moral decay started basically from the top, though. And Eastern Empire continued to exist until 1453, so it is quite clear that whatever moral decay they were facing was nowhere as problematic as what we are facing today.
Just as you are the subject of the Government. No difference.
In the end however, all empires fall due to overstretch. And while using force is unavoidable, the less an empire relies on the might makes the right approach, longer it will last.