Posted on 10/13/2001 8:34:37 AM PDT by annalex
Just cause of violence is to prevent an imminent threat of violence or retaliate for an act of violence committed against an individual. Abstract violations of sovereignty have nothing to do with just causes of war; concrete harm to citizens does.
The technological development is relevant to the extent that it allows us to grant the oil in the desert rights to Exxon, which has the technology.
Then you admit that the Exxon drillers must succumb to the land owners. The right to be left alone and leave the oil right where it is excludes meddling by Exxon or any other technology company or nation. You're arguing in circles.
If there's oil in a zit on my forehead, you would argue that Exxon could "peacefully extract" that oil as long as they didn't intend to violate my rights. After all I left it there as a big white-headed invitation for Exxon to come pop it and turn it into gasoline.
Horsehockey. It's their nation. It's their desert. And it's their oil. They can leave it in the ground if they wish. That's what I intend on my property and I have had offers to come and get it. Thankfully I secured the mineral rights. The oil stays there as long as I retain those rights.
The Exxon drillers must submit to the owners, yes -- I never argues otherwise. They don't have to submit to the government that happens to have the jurisdiction of unowned land.
LOL. Really? If it is within their territory are you suggesting that any unclaimed land can be raped of its resources without permission?
There's alot of unclaimed land in Alaska too. Let's you and I go drill for oil there and see how long it lasts.
That I can't imagine. Among the natural rights that an indivudual has is the right to exchange his property at will. If he wishes to exchange property with a non-citizen, the govenrment's job is to assist in the transaction, not to ban it.
I can well imagine that a government would limit land ownership to citizens, as an extension of the idea of defense of the nation. We might want to limit immigration and communications electromagnetic spectrum (radio and t.v. channels) based on the same idea.
Another reason: ease of ability to apply the court system of the nation to citizens, as opposed to foreign holders.
Absolutely, anyone interested in drilling for oil in Alaska's wilderness should be free to do so. You used another tendentious word, "rape" as you spoke of "raping the earth's resources". If there is a concrete harm done by resource extraction, then that harm becomes the reason that makes such extraction unrightful. The absence of a government permit never becomes such reason under the natural law.
Yes, I agree with that. As long as there is a credible concrete threat, the government may restrict trade in some specific circumstances. For example, striking a private deal with some Arabs involving weapon sales would be rightly prohibited under the circumstances. Those are temporary wartime restrictions.
I don't see facilitating the government in applying legislation is enough justification though.
My reference to welfare indeed was made sort of by libertarian inertia; as you point out, immigrant Arabs don't fit that particualr pattern. Instead, in their case we should be asking to abolish other leftist projects, such as the so-called civil rights legislation, that compels businesses and institutions to deal with everyone in the manner that stands cultural instincts on their head. So if an employee demands to accomodate his out-of-the-ordinary cultural needs, our society sides with the demand, and it should side with the freedom of contract, and freedom of the employer to hire or not to hire without owing anyone an explanation.
I agree with your profile of Arab immigrants, but I think that the Western culture is best protected through non-coercive means.
Agreed that we could apply restrictions in trade as part of national defense, especially with weapons, and also agreed that we don't want to get carried away, like supporting the mohair industry under that guise.
I see land ownership going beyond that though, perhaps partly because it depends more on government for its protection and definition.
I don't see facilitating the government in applying legislation is enough justification though.
I don't think I understand this sentence. Perhaps you could fill in the blank for me: "...enough justification (for) _____ though."
I see limiting land ownership to citizens as a part of permanent "national defense" in two ways. One, it gives a stake to more Americans in defending the nation by reducing the number of competitors in land ownership. Two, it increases the number of American eyeballs actually looking out for foreign agents and saboteurs, and noticing "funny stuff". I see the militia as larger and stronger with more small landowners.
The right to decide what happens to land is ownership. You seem to be operating from the premise that ownership belongs, fundamentally, to the soveriegn(whoever that is). Am I understanding you correctly?
If the people prefer a monarchy than I suppose that the only Soverign would be the King and his court.
If that nation decides that it wants to allow the whole of the territory to be shared by nomadic tribes who have no technological designs and at the same time tell oil producers that they have no claim to resources underneath the soil, then that is their prerogative and choice.
I would agree that if a country sold mineral rights and rights of way to a corporation so that they could get at the oil, it should abide by its contracts.
But the U.S. has no compelling interest to use war on behalf of any corporation that may or may not suffer from a tort or breach of contract within the borders of a sovereign nation.
And annalex appears to be saying that anyone should be able to claim un-tapped resources anywhere if the residents of that land do not have the intent of tapping those resources.
This assumes the worst of those people for one, and it assumes that tapping the resources is some God-given right which shan't be denied by the backwards people who just don't know what they have.
It assumes that our way of life is far superior to the rest of the world and that rights, rather than coming from nature or God, come from superior intellect and force.
It assumes that the people in whatever area in question do not actually have the right to direct their own destinies.
If that isn't a complete repudiation of "libertarian principles" nothing is. And I find it a bit troubling that this discussion is predicated on the assumption that this theory is consistent with libertarian principles.
No way.
If that is true than Alaska ceases to exist. The territory that they claim, is no longer under the direction of the state soverigns. What if Alaska doesn't want people to drill for oil in their State?
I don't much like outside meddlers, but if soverignty is the ability to decide what occurs inside it's territory, then I'm an enemy of sovereignty. Government shouldn't have the ability to do anything as important as determining what happens, just the ability to enforce a few rules.
I do object to the Arabian (or Alaskan) government simply claiming that anyone who wishes to drill inside the sovereignty perimeter needs a permit from the government. The government is there to protect the rights of its citizens. If there is no objection coming from the Bedouin or from an Alaskan, then a foreigner should be able to extract the resource.
So, to answer directly your question in #78, if the Alaskans do not want Exxon (or a foreign oil company) to drill there, they have to say so. If the Alaskan government doesn't want the drilling but cannot connect its (government's) wants to any popular demand, then that government has no legitimacy in doing so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.