- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Someone said, on this forum, “the resources of a country belongs ONLY to that country.” But is that REALLY true?
On it’s face, it seems obvious, just, and fair. We are taught as schoolchildren not to steal and start fights, right?? Simple.
But then I thought about it a little deeper, and came to a very different conclusion.
To me, it comes down to two key questions. 1.) Can a human being really justifiably OWN land and 2.) Are governments like schoolchildren, in that they have rights and feelings etc that would preclude them from being picked on?
My answer to the first question, regarding whether one can ever really OWN land and resources, is a firm “no.” The resason: What would entitle somebody to sole ownership of a resource we all need, say oil or water or food? The fact that they lucked out and were born and raised on the land containing it??
If we answer “yes,” then we are saying that what morally entitles anyone to ownership of anything else is simply a birthright, handed down from generation to generation. A matter of luck and genes. But what value does heredity add to society that it should be the sole determinant of ownership?
My answer to the second question, regarding whether governments have rights, is a firm “no.” Governments do not have feelings, they do not have thoughts, and subsequently, they do not have rights. A government is an inanimate construct, and its existence is justified only as long as it serves the governed.
Therefore, a dictator, having no aligence to the people he governs, has no rights in my book. He is simply a bully to be disposed of.
The only moral purpose for the existence of a government is to serve the needs of the governed. That’s all. The government in itself has no rights. Sadaam Hussein had no inherent right to the great wealth of Iraq, and disposing of him was not in any way immoral.
So with all that in mind, if the people of the United States need Iraqi oil, why should we not take it? Since I can find no moral or ethical determinant for the ownership of anything, it becomes a more practical question of ownership going to the most fit.
If you don’t agree, look back in history and provide one example of when people, nations, have lived side by side and not tried to take resources from one another. It’s a tale as old as human history, the sort of Darwinian natural selection of nations.
The native americans, who themselves did not believe in the concept of land ownership, were overrun by European colonists who put the land to better use, and the world has benefitted as a result. This is simply the way of the world.
I suggest that the United States would put the natural resources of Iraq to better use than the Iraqis.
In my opinion, we should take their oil. What do you think?
On it’s face, it seems obvious, just, and fair. We are taught as schoolchildren not to steal and start fights, right?? Simple.
But then I thought about it a little deeper, and came to a very different conclusion.
To me, it comes down to two key questions. 1.) Can a human being really justifiably OWN land and 2.) Are governments like schoolchildren, in that they have rights and feelings etc that would preclude them from being picked on?
My answer to the first question, regarding whether one can ever really OWN land and resources, is a firm “no.” The resason: What would entitle somebody to sole ownership of a resource we all need, say oil or water or food? The fact that they lucked out and were born and raised on the land containing it??
If we answer “yes,” then we are saying that what morally entitles anyone to ownership of anything else is simply a birthright, handed down from generation to generation. A matter of luck and genes. But what value does heredity add to society that it should be the sole determinant of ownership?
My answer to the second question, regarding whether governments have rights, is a firm “no.” Governments do not have feelings, they do not have thoughts, and subsequently, they do not have rights. A government is an inanimate construct, and its existence is justified only as long as it serves the governed.
Therefore, a dictator, having no aligence to the people he governs, has no rights in my book. He is simply a bully to be disposed of.
The only moral purpose for the existence of a government is to serve the needs of the governed. That’s all. The government in itself has no rights. Sadaam Hussein had no inherent right to the great wealth of Iraq, and disposing of him was not in any way immoral.
So with all that in mind, if the people of the United States need Iraqi oil, why should we not take it? Since I can find no moral or ethical determinant for the ownership of anything, it becomes a more practical question of ownership going to the most fit.
If you don’t agree, look back in history and provide one example of when people, nations, have lived side by side and not tried to take resources from one another. It’s a tale as old as human history, the sort of Darwinian natural selection of nations.
The native americans, who themselves did not believe in the concept of land ownership, were overrun by European colonists who put the land to better use, and the world has benefitted as a result. This is simply the way of the world.
I suggest that the United States would put the natural resources of Iraq to better use than the Iraqis.
In my opinion, we should take their oil. What do you think?
All without paying for it or asking for your permission. 
