 | | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Its an example to show that you can't use a country's laws legally in another country. The UN had the resolution--the UN has to deal with enforcing it. The US, stating the UN resolution as reason to invade, but at hte same time acting against (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I put a question mark behind my question to show that it wasn't an assumption. You assumed incorrectly that I was making an assumption. I would have used a more recent example from Africa, but I couldn't remember the name of the country (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
|
(...) Indeed it was, but you wholy missed the point in your zealous rush to criticize me yet again. I wasn't objecting to your use of my own words, but to your callous treatment of my statements by way of making a big public show of ignoring them. (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Only nations can generate patriotic pride (Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?)
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I've been busy building for the last couple weeks, but I've finally got a chance to come back and read through this mess again. Much as others missed the intent of your sewer comment, I think you missed the intent of my patriotism (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) There's only one part of your answer that matters: "No". When talking about something being "just" or "unjust", we are not talking about the power to enforce that, and I'm not addressing that at all. So, no, Saddam doesn't have the right to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Reading in steep decline?
|
|
(...) Various unorganized thoughts: --While web surfing does involve a lot of reading, this is generally in very small bites, distracted by a lot of colorful eye-candy. It's like the contrast between USA Today and the New York Times. Reading books (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Not sure--maybe they could go at night, when no one's watching. Your other post suggesting "information" seems a good compromise, unless the surrounding nation can somehow claim the airwaves as its own property and thereby charge for their (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Honestly, I don't know the answer to that one off hand. What do you suggest? Armored VTOL aircraft or spaceships? Or maybe just never leaving? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Can information penetrate this barrier? In that case pretty much any country with a sufficient(1) technology and manufacturing base should be OK (even if they're a net importer of food and raw materials now) 1 - I suspect defining "sufficient" (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) I support cohesive sanctions against Iraq. That said, my wanting to not let people suffer anywhere in the world gets conflicted with what's best in the long run. 'Food for oil' will minimize the suffering of the people today, however it won't (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Hey, you know, I always (well, not really always) wondered why they don't do that with those "Native American" casinos you see popping up all over the place these days. Apparently they're able to fight that sort of thing off. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Well, maybe this is a better hypothetical: What if the dominant nation (accepting, though, that the minarchist idea kind of trumps this) simply buys all territory surrounding the smaller nation and then charges the smaller nation a billion (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Nope, I was genuinely intersted to see where the debate would go--I don't have a solid opinion on the matter, and this particular hypothetical scenario doesn't pertain to the current Iraqi situation. I did think about the American revolution, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) In advance? Would you sign up for that? Or do you mean after the fact against people who were in already? I would tend to think (and I'm guessing here) that every new law (except basic common law, you can't dodge the prohibition against (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) Dejure. "consent of the governed" and all that... It may defacto have a lot of guns though. (...) Only if you can escape, and your former co citizens (or properly employed police) don't come find you and remand you back into custody. I don't (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
(...) That's fine with me--I'm interested in examining the philosophy itself, (...) Okay, I think that makes some sense. But couldn't the dominant nation simply impose upon the seceeding nation a fee of, say, a billion dollars per person to effect (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0Ju05.zt6@lugnet.com... (...) people (...) Ok, so an improperly formed sovereignty doesn't have any validity... (...) the (...) exclude (...) Hmm, if I'm accused of a crime, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
These are LMF answers, not my own, which are rather muddier. (...) Yes, each and every one... (...) Any group of people, no matter how small, whether territorial or not. At the extreme, it must be unanimous consent or else provision must be made to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message news:I0Hq3D.5IE@lugnet.com... (...) guys (...) must (...) that (...) in the (...) line. (...) these guys (...) Good point about people who don't want to be there guarding people's (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:I0Hp4F.24K7@lugnet.com... (...) happen: (...) this (...) or (...) lives (...) granted. Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with either solution, but I think we should widen the sources for aid. (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
