Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:the Falkland islanders should decide

Perhaps some people - like, for instance, the kelpers - aren't qualified to decide important things? This isn't the Cambridge debating society we're talking about.

Meh, I think they can go without the insulting nicknames, and decide themselves. I'm not sold on them being British, they can decide to be their own country. It's their choice.

But people make poor decisions when they lack the relevant knowledge (uniformed voters), majority rule fails to reflect the actual costs and benefits of one's decision, and entrenched special interests groups can unfairly sway the vote.

I'd say the CATO solution was best. (it's pages back, maybe 1st, 2nd, or 3rd page). The land was not the UK's and was taken "by the sword" which isn't a legitimate means for obtaining property rights.

Another solution is to cut them loose, so neither Argentina nor UK gets them. Maybe this could be enforced by having the Maldives find some credible allies, or have their independence guaranteed by the OAS.

Symmetry wrote:I think they can go without the insulting nicknames

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

BigBallinStalin wrote:But people make poor decisions when they lack the relevant knowledge (uniformed voters), majority rule fails to reflect the actual costs and benefits of one's decision, and entrenched special interests groups can unfairly sway the vote.

I'd say the CATO solution was best. (it's pages back, maybe 1st, 2nd, or 3rd page). The land was not the UK's and was taken "by the sword" which isn't a legitimate means for obtaining property rights.

Another solution is to cut them loose, so neither Argentina nor UK gets them. Maybe this could be enforced by having the Maldives find some credible allies, or have their independence guaranteed by the OAS.

By what right do you believe Argentina owns them? Inheritance via Spanish conquest?

That would be by the sword, which you dismiss.

The answer is, as you seem to be moving towards, let the citizens choose.

Symmetry wrote: The answer is, as you seem to be moving towards, let the citizens choose.

Nations have a right to unity of territory.

If, tomorrow, a Muslim-majority neighborhood in Birmingham voted to become part of Pakistan, the chances the UK would let them are slim to nil. The intransigence of the referendum question is a tactic to delay progress on the Malvinas question through obfuscation.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote: The answer is, as you seem to be moving towards, let the citizens choose.

Nations have a right to unity of territory.

If, tomorrow, a Muslim-majority neighborhood in Birmingham voted to become part of Pakistan, the chances the UK would let them are slim to nil. The intransigence of the referendum question is a tactic to delay progress on the Malvinas question through obfuscation.

Meh, why would British citizens vote to become a part of Pakistan simply because of their faith? Did that argument make sense in your head before you tyoed it? You do accept that Muslims can be British, right? That British people can be Muslims?

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote: The answer is, as you seem to be moving towards, let the citizens choose.

Nations have a right to unity of territory.

If, tomorrow, a Muslim-majority neighborhood in Birmingham voted to become part of Pakistan, the chances the UK would let them are slim to nil. The intransigence of the referendum question is a tactic to delay progress on the Malvinas question through obfuscation.

Meh, why would British citizens vote to become a part of Pakistan simply because of their faith?

freedom from persecution

"Please! Lock the door! Don't let them in! Please! Help us!"

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote: The answer is, as you seem to be moving towards, let the citizens choose.

Nations have a right to unity of territory.

If, tomorrow, a Muslim-majority neighborhood in Birmingham voted to become part of Pakistan, the chances the UK would let them are slim to nil. The intransigence of the referendum question is a tactic to delay progress on the Malvinas question through obfuscation.

Meh, why would British citizens vote to become a part of Pakistan simply because of their faith?

freedom from religious persecution

Interesting, I confess to being intrigued by your nonsense. Go on...

Argentina this morning seized the Spanish oil company Repsol, nationalizing 51% of the company's stock. This will give Argentina a previously lacked deep-seal drilling capability which will be needed for mining off the shores of Malvinas soon ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17732910

Spain and the EU protested, blah blah blah, the usual, however, they can't do much!

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:But people make poor decisions when they lack the relevant knowledge (uniformed voters), majority rule fails to reflect the actual costs and benefits of one's decision, and entrenched special interests groups can unfairly sway the vote.

I'd say the CATO solution was best. (it's pages back, maybe 1st, 2nd, or 3rd page). The land was not the UK's and was taken "by the sword" which isn't a legitimate means for obtaining property rights.

Another solution is to cut them loose, so neither Argentina nor UK gets them. Maybe this could be enforced by having the Maldives find some credible allies, or have their independence guaranteed by the OAS.

By what right do you believe Argentina owns them? Inheritance via Spanish conquest?

That would be by the sword, which you dismiss.

The answer is, as you seem to be moving towards, let the citizens choose.

I don't know the full history of the islands, but the UK's ownership isn't legitimate--even if the stolen goods were stolen. It shouldn't be up for the UK government to decide; they should simply "put the stolen goods back."


If I conquer a land and extract wealth from my homeland in order to provide the conquered land some benefits, would that undermine the legitimacy of that vote for "self-determination" in the conquered land? I think it does, so...

If the majority rule on that island rules in favor of remaining with the British, then given this additional tax burden, tax revenues, and additional security issues, it would be fair for all the UK'ers to vote on whether or not to accept them. Why not let the actual people of both lands involved decide for themselves?


RE: "let citizens choose," as already mentioned, there's problems with that vote. Voting and voluntary exchange involve different incentive and knowledge problems. So, my other option is to (1) compensate refugees who want to leave, while (2) cutting the rest loose and letting them rule themselves and ally with whoever.

saxitoxin wrote:Argentina this morning seized the Spanish oil company Repsol, nationalizing 51% of the company's stock. This will give Argentina a previously lacked deep-seal drilling capability which will be needed for mining off the shores of Malvinas soon ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17732910

Spain and the EU protested, blah blah blah, the usual, however, they can't do much!

Well, hey, that company ran those risks and suffered the costs, so I'm not worried. But I am worried about Argentina:

Argentina now increases the perceived risk for FDI (foreign direct investment) within their country, thus reducing future, sizable mutual gains from voluntary exchanges with other companies. Sure, they got a short-term gain (even though before the nationalization, Argentina and its people had access to oil from deep-seal drilling capabilities), but they lose in the long-run. That's a great way to stifle economic growth from international trade.

I don't know the full history of the islands, but the UK's ownership isn't legitimate

Guess that pretty much sums up the value of your opinion then.

Chariot of Fire wrote:

I don't know the full history of the islands, but the UK's ownership isn't legitimate

Guess that pretty much sums up the value of your opinion then.

Well, bro, recount the full history of the US and of China. Give me about 5000 pages, then your opinion on those countries would be considered valuable. Otherwise, [insert snarky comment].

Why should I? What correlation does my knowledge of US and China history have with your assertion that the UK's sovereignty over the Falklands is unlawful?

You're the one making statements without being in possession of all the facts.

The fact is shipping over a bunch of your people to the island doesn't make it your island. It's why no one in the world recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus except Turkey.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Why should I? What correlation does my knowledge of US and China history have with your assertion that the UK's sovereignty over the Falklands is unlawful?

You're the one making statements without being in possession of all the facts.

It's an argument by analogy. In other words, you don't need knowledge of the full history of the players involved in a situation in order to provide possible and valuable solutions. Partial knowledge of the history can be sufficient, and other knowledge other than knowing the full history is still valuable.

I'm humble enough to admit that I don't know everything involved, and there's nothing wrong with being humble. If you think my position lacks some necessary amount of value, then please explain what's wrong with my position. If you don't want to, then feel free to stick with occasional snide remarks that lack merit.



The UK's sovereignty over the Falklands is lawful only if you believe that command and conquer only by the UK (and not by others) is legitimate. This would be arbitrary, but hey, when nationalist sentiments are involved, reason isn't necessary.

Neither the UK nor Argentina have legal claims to the territory. Their claims are based on coercion, or the threat of violence. Therefore, see the last two paragraphs for my position on this. If you believe that exchanges based on coercion are legitimate, please explain why that is so.

In your own words:

But people make poor decisions when they lack the relevant knowledge

Which may go some way to explaining why you'd write something such as:

The land was not the UK's and was taken "by the sword"....etc etc

GreecePwns wrote:The fact is shipping over a bunch of your people to the island doesn't make it your island. It's why no one in the world recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus except Turkey.

this is the best point in the thread

Chariot of Fire wrote:In your own words:

But people make poor decisions when they lack the relevant knowledge

Which may go some way to explaining why you'd write something such as:

The land was not the UK's and was taken "by the sword"....etc etc

Sure, the first statement applies to you as well.

Again,
If you think my position lacks some necessary amount of value, then please explain what's wrong with my position. If you don't want to, then feel free to stick with occasional snide remarks that lack merit.

What relevant knowledge am I missing? CoF doesn't know or seem to care. Oh well!

CoH, I take it that you're a proud English patriot, right?

It's hard to believe it's been two years since that sad day when tens of thousands of Argentinos gathered outside the Casa Rosada to first hear the sad news that the Leader Nestor Kirchener had just entered immortality.



It's a little known fact but President Cristina has only worn black every day in those two years. She is such the epitomy of grace.



vs.

the celebrity "Access Hollywood" antics of the cocaine-addicted, too-rich-to-care British ruling family who need Malvinas oil so they can buy more jewels, sports cars and silver-plated pistols -

An impressive new television advertisement by the Argentine Olympic Committee shows Argentine field hockey star Fernando Zylberberg looking sadly at the grey and depressing signs of the ongoing British military occupation of the Malvinas islands before, inspired, he begins training to defeat the British on the sporting field in a spirit of peace. The ad ends with the inspiring slogan:

To compete on the soil of the English, we train on Argentine soil.



The ad has been widely heralded around the world, except for crowded London, where it caused people to drop their brandy sniffers in horror and pull their hair in loud, spastic convulsions of agony, complaints and whining cries of "unfair!"

Using a memorial to British servicemen who died in WW1 as a training ground for propaganda purposes is likely to piss people off.

Symmetry wrote:Using a memorial to British servicemen who died in WW1 as a training ground for propaganda purposes is likely to piss people off.

I made a note of that:

Saxitoxin wrote:The ad has been widely heralded around the world, except for crowded London, where it caused people to drop their brandy sniffers in horror and pull their hair in loud, spastic convulsions of agony, complaints and whining cries of "unfair!"

A month old video produced by the Casa Rosada to air on TV stations throughout Latin America paints picture of a future in which the British military occupation has ended, in which the Malvinas are now prosperous and free, inhabited by both Argentinos and kelpers in peaceful co-existence: