Search results for query: *

No it's an idiotic response which projects some line of thought that in no way follows. Those who hold land are the legitimate owners of it, this in no way implies that rebellion against bad governments is somehow wrong. Hilarious considering the only one whos clearly upset here is you...

No I just reject the question as unrelated to the discussion. We're discussing the context of "stolen" land not being a thing here, not whatever derail you intended me to engage with.

What the fuck are you talking about? We are discussing a hypothetical scenario where victory has already been achieved, and how having that victory and holding the land, holding the monopoly on violence over it, makes you the legitimate government over the land. This entire sentence is a...

Again, this is unrelated to anything we are discussing here. We are talking about what makes a legitimate state and you seem to be going off on some hilariously unrelated tangent. Cool, this is still not related tho

We are discussing a hypothetical of *if* they win in the future are they legitimate.

If they win, then yes they unfortunately are. Why are you arguing with me about this anyway? What would the alternative be? This entire train of thought is leftist in nature to begin with, so if you hate them so much why are you making their arguments for them?

I'm certain this is backwards, africans tend to have a higher percentage of other hominids (although not neanderthal)

Why are you dead set on there being this mythical "native?" People have been moving across the world for hundreds of thousands of years and even in north America there were multiple waves of settlement each one wiping out the last. Maybe New Zealand counts, but your striving to find a single...

Even in regards to homo sapiens the answer is no

Then you are seriously misinformed As if it my personal philosophy... It's just the nature of states, the entity that holds a monopoly on violence is the legitimate government of a given area

No I think your whole thing about murder is a strawman. We were specifically speaking about "stolen land" as a concept and how out of touch that is with how every society in history, from tribe to nation state, came to own the land it did.

What a ridiculous point to jump to. For one, both of these killed a ton of people within their own territory/their own citizenry. But yes, had the Nazis won and conquered all of Europe none of that would be "stolen" land, which is a naive way of looking at things that completely misunderstands...

Maybe, but I think there's more nuance under the scenario of leaving your car on someone elses property for years than you moving onto someones property and being able to claim it

I'm pretty sure you do actually get to keep it in this case, at least in the US. No the land wasn't "stolen," when you conquer another nation or win a war against them and gain land it isn't stealing, since the very thing that determines who owns land is who can violently prevent others from...