Search results

Full participation of course being something that would particularly interest large groups that can gain a lot of influence over the whole thing thanks to said full participation. Meanwhile relatively tiny groups, which in this scale will still include many millions, may be more interested in...

Well then, that means like we got something set out. Whatever moral system Federation has, it's closer to the British Empire and will go Charles Napier if conflicts arise, rather than modern western countries trying to explain, beg and bribe, and in turn will eventually enforce some level of...

Exactly, it's one of the things that most modern westerners aren't comfortable discussing and doubly so, taking conclusions from - not all the moral systems of the world are absolutely and unconditionally universalist like the current western ones insists on being. Historically it's not that...

According to us, he is. According to the Chinese, taking into account some horror stories i've heard about doing business in China (there are many), not necessarily.

This term does sound like a thinly veiled threat and is often used as such. Yup. And i'm using it as a contrast to the claim that wider forms of organization that are not as common as families are not natural. Yup, that's what we can observe. Yup. That's the "nature of human organization...

Yes, on an island you have the right to build a ship if you want and know how to. EU freedom of movement of course is not some kind of divine right and no one sane claims it as such, it's a big pile of contracts agreed upon by different sovereign states with very conventional right to regulate...

Depends on how big the differences are, and if they apply to edge cases or are major in scale. I think this is a matter of different interpretation of "natural". In this case, it is a separation of what rights are necessarily a matter of compromise with society at large, and what rights...

Unless you previously had some kind of mutual deal of recognition and basic understanding with them, it can get interpreted in countless ways. Was it stealing? Was it conquest? Was it a conflict of legal systems (aka settlers vs nomads vs property rights)? Depending on what angle one looks at it...

And i pointed out that this example was a form of inter-civilizational conflict rather than the government mistreating its citizens by arbitrarily taking away their property, so the considerations there have to reasonably get a lot more complex. This is why in vast majority of historical cases...

No, my contention is that moral systems that are more concerned with limiting their adherents in conflicts with non-adherents than helping the former are kinda silly and risk falling to natural selection. From what you are saying about the Federation it seems that this issue is irrelevant to it...

I don't think you understood my argument at all. In the arena of civilizations and competing moral standards, they more often than not don't care about your standards and consider them wrong, period. They are far more important for relations within a culture, or at least shared civilization...

Already in this case you enter the territory of inter-state\inter-civilizational competition, where natural law even as a concept may exist, nevermind be agreed upon regarding its precise shape, just on one or no sides. I'm against unconditional universalist application of natural law. For one...

A lot of my questioning is that morality (which first we would need to pick, and in terms of not just keeping and transfering it but claims, that can be a huge variable) and justice cannot be the only considerations for theory of property. Things like economic viability, security and national...

De facto all states are a bounded state. Some have some kind of specifically, legally defined, internally developed boundries, both in terms of rights of citizens, administrative subdivisions and geographic scope, and for the rest, the boundries are more practically defined - as in China may...

I was implying that if an investment system is to be pursued at all, due to the sheer variety of potential options and different nature of colonization than wild west era America, homesteading analogues just don't cut it. So, how about investment value standard, without getting into the details...

Fairly according to what standard? One's investment in infrastructure certainly has to have some value in the framework of property rights. But it is a claim, and it does add value to land. Then you have the road builders, the power company, the water company, the emergency patrol... That's the...

What does a random person do with more or less 1 square kilometer of martian land? Most likely, absolutely nothing, Mars is not 18th century America. Any land that is valuable must have likely valuable resources under it at minimum. It's not like you can cut a bunch of trees or at least plant a...

That's something market competition is supposed to do, not state destroying some businesses with inheritance taxes.

Yeah, it raises the issue of which infrastructure is more important relative to others. Shitty solar panels for powers that take a lot of land? Power lines for them? A nuclear reactor? How about a road or atmospheric processor? But it serves a very large area... On the other hand you don't want...

It's the default way for the pre-industrial times, in which case farming, with all its pre-industrial limitations, was synonymous with valuable land. All the other less important territory nearby gets handled by whatever polity the nearby farm holders are a part of. And that would be the source...