abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It is just so hypocritical to own something that was taken from it's original owners by force but call me a rapist for collecting a disability check.
Islam can dish it out, but can't take it
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You're the one that on one hand declares people aren't "property" (We agree there, in a sense) yet you take the proceeds of peoples labor WITHOUT their consent. It sure seems like you like them picking cotton for YOU.
What else would you call taking something that doesn't belong to you?
Also, I never said you were a rapist, I said the tactic applied in rape is the same as in a forced redistribution of other peoples property.
If you have to make shit up, you're losing.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Nice job. Now THAT is the Uncle Buck I know.
How do you return land to a person dead hundreds of years previous again?
Look, if the bad man gave you a bad check when you agreed to a voluntary interaction with him, go see Abandon Conflict, he'll "get you in" on the Anarcho - Gravy Train and the checks will start showing up so fast you'll be able to line the bottom of your gerbil cages with them.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Can you offer any proof my land was taken by force or are you just gonna sit there in your dirty underwear waiting for the government to come fold your laundry for you and provide "free" libraries so you can read about Anarcho - Fakism?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Good to see you back and spouting Doerisms.
One characteristic of ownership is the improvement /. use of previously unowned or abandoned property.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Who is "they" ?
How do you restitute a person that MAY have lived in a hunter / gatherer society hundreds or thousands of years ago on land I live on now?
Besides YOUR government might have killed them in some kind of "manifest destiny" thing.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Oh right, you live on a native reservation...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So collecting a disability check is basically rape, got it.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
With the knowledge of where your land is, it would be very simple to know which nation/tribe can claim the land as theirs. I'm sure we find some living relatives of the decedents, in which you can return the land. You know that you live on stolen land, but you make zero attempts to return it. You benefit off the government
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
Warships and proclamations !
PROCLAMATION
His Majesty King Taufaʻahau Tupou IV in Council DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM:
WHEREAS the Reefs known as North Minerva Reef and South Minerva Reef have long served as fishing grounds for the Tongan people and have long been regarded as belonging to the Kingdom of Tonga has now created on these Reefs islands known as Teleki Tokelau and Teleki Tonga; AND WHEREAS it is expedient that we should now confirm the rights of the Kingdom of Tonga to these islands; THEREFORE we do hereby AFFIRM and PROCLAIM that the islands, rocks, reefs, foreshores and waters lying within a radius of twelve miles [19.31 km] thereof are part of our Kingdom of Tonga.
Last edited:
Doer
Well-Known Member
No land is returned. It has to be retaken. And it was not stolen. It was taken by force. That's completely different.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
by force ? or migration
Doer
Well-Known Member
Or Inner Jihad?
Doer
Well-Known Member
I remember when these Australians set up dredges and lifted sand to bring an atoll above high tide in international waters, and claimed it, like above. All legal. They set up a Casino and brought by a cruise ship or 2.
Then the very powerful country of Indonesia said, "Good. THEREFORE we do hereby AFFIRM and PROCLAIM that the islands, rocks, reefs, foreshores and waters lying within a radius....yada yada."
And they sent in a platoon of paratroop to occupy it. WTF? Sure, they annexed the new island and shut it down. No casinos in Indonesia.
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
In 1982, a group of Americans led again by Morris C. “Bud” Davis tried to occupy the reefs, but were forced off by Tongan troops after three weeks. In recent years several groups have allegedly sought to re-establish Minerva. No known claimant group since 1982 has made any attempt to take possession of the Minerva Reefs.
Territorial dispute
In November 2005, Fiji lodged a complaint with the International Seabed Authority concerning Tonga's maritime waters claims surrounding Minerva. Tonga has lodged a counter claim. The Minerva "principality" group also claims to have lodged a counter claim.
In 2005, Fiji has made it clear that they do not recognize any maritime water claims by Tonga to the Minerva Reefs under the UNCLOS agreements. In November 2005, Fiji lodged a complaint with the International Seabed Authority concerning territorial claim over Minerva. Tonga lodged a counter claim, and the Principality of Minerva micronation claimed to have lodged a counter claim.
In 2010 the Fijian Navy destroyed navigation lights at the entrance to the lagoon. In late May 2011, they again destroyed navigational equipment installed by Tongans. In early June 2011, two Royal Tongan Navyships were sent to the Reef to replace the equipment, and to reassert Tonga's claim to the territory. Fijian Navy ships in the vicinity reportedly withdrew as the Tongans approached.
In an effort to settle the dispute, the government of Tonga revealed a proposal in early July 2014 to give the Minerva Reefs to Fiji in exchange for the Lau Group of islands
Lands Minister Lord Maʻafu Tukuiʻaulahi announced that he would make the proposal to Fiji's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola. Some Tongans have Lauan ancestors and many Lauans have Tongan ancestors; Tonga's Lands Minister is named after Enele Ma'afu, the Tongan Prince who originally claimed parts of Lau for Tonga.
The principality of sea land is similar http://www.sealandgov.org/
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
By who's right?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Ah this is the beginning of the subtle claim of ownership of Japan which, by 1950 had come though as spoils of War.
President Fillmore's letter to the Japanese Emperor, carried by Commodore Perry for "gunboat diplomacy."
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/black_ships_and_samurai/presletter.html
If your imperial majesty is not satisfied that it would be safe altogether to abrogate the ancient laws which forbid foreign trade, they might be suspended for five or ten years, so as to try the experiment. If it does not prove as beneficial as was hoped, the ancient laws can be restored. The United States often limit their treaties with foreign States to a few years, and then renew them or not, as they please.
Of course, Perry had already taken land as force, began building fortified supply wharves, and was ignoring all threats..
President Fillmore's letter to the Japanese Emperor, carried by Commodore Perry for "gunboat diplomacy."
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/black_ships_and_samurai/presletter.html
If your imperial majesty is not satisfied that it would be safe altogether to abrogate the ancient laws which forbid foreign trade, they might be suspended for five or ten years, so as to try the experiment. If it does not prove as beneficial as was hoped, the ancient laws can be restored. The United States often limit their treaties with foreign States to a few years, and then renew them or not, as they please.
Of course, Perry had already taken land as force, began building fortified supply wharves, and was ignoring all threats..
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
The dude @ sea land in the 1970s fired warning shots at the British ship that was sent to get rid of him and his family lol
The UK tried to convict him under British law, for firearms charges
but the court had to rule that it had no jurisdiction over sealand as at the time it was located in international waters outside of British territory
funny stuff , a little bit later in the 1970s a law was passed that forbid any man-made structure in international waters being declared a de facto/de jure/ de facto sovereignty
try anything like this these days the warships will be there very quickly
The UK tried to convict him under British law, for firearms charges
but the court had to rule that it had no jurisdiction over sealand as at the time it was located in international waters outside of British territory
funny stuff , a little bit later in the 1970s a law was passed that forbid any man-made structure in international waters being declared a de facto/de jure/ de facto sovereignty
try anything like this these days the warships will be there very quickly