|
On April 10 2013 06:46 oneofthem wrote:
a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties.
Argentina will not agree with shared development treaties. It is written into their constitution that their government must pursue the acquisition of the islands. They cannot bend without changing their constitution and the UK will not agree to give the islands up. There is not much room for negotiation.
|
On April 10 2013 06:46 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 06:36 nunez wrote:On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote:
nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether. yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much. now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken. edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable. Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 10 2013 06:51 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 06:46 oneofthem wrote:
a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties. Argentina will not agree with shared development treaties. It is written into their constitution that their government must pursue the acquisition of the islands. They cannot bend without changing their constitution and the UK will not agree to give the islands up. There is not much room for negotiation.
yea, that would be a problem in this particular situation. but as a general approach to resolving these sort of issues (china-japan island etc) it's better than a straight down sovereignty approach
|
On April 10 2013 06:46 oneofthem wrote:
a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties.
Even then, logically the wealth would go to Spain, the United Kingdom, or else it would be terra nullius.
|
On April 10 2013 06:53 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 06:46 hzflank wrote:On April 10 2013 06:36 nunez wrote:On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote:
nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether. yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much. now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken. edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable. Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory. yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part. but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader. maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 10 2013 08:01 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 06:46 oneofthem wrote:
a possible solution would be to separate settler rights from mineral wealth rights.
the former is one of civil administration, the second is about a commons resource problem, like international fisheries. you'd have whichever government administering the territory's laws and post offices etc that the settlers prefer, but the underlying mineral wealth is settled through shared development treaties. Even then, logically the wealth would go to Spain, the United Kingdom, or else it would be terra nullius.
by what logic? it is easy to assert a right of proximity for natural resources if a new framework is proposed instead of mechanically following from old rules.
|
On April 10 2013 08:02 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 06:53 nunez wrote:On April 10 2013 06:46 hzflank wrote:On April 10 2013 06:36 nunez wrote:On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote:
nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether. yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much. now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken. edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable. Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory. yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part. but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader. maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong. The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
|
Her death is making me get rather concerned about Hell`s economy in the next years.
|
On April 10 2013 08:33 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 08:02 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 10 2013 06:53 nunez wrote:On April 10 2013 06:46 hzflank wrote:On April 10 2013 06:36 nunez wrote:On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote:
nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether. yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much. now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken. edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable. Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory. yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part. but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader. maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong. The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands. the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory, it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the land in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help finding the the optimal way of solving a dispute. and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past. we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
No, that's stupid. 99.8% of people living there wish to be part of the British Empire in the referendum last month. End of discussion right there.
|
hah. stupid... i'm just getting started.
challenge your stance,
entertain some nuance,
a man might be a brit,
but sheep don't give a shit.
you want to sit on it now to prove some point, good for you, i can't blame you for that. but it probably means that we are not seeing eye to eye on what is being discussed.
|
On April 10 2013 11:35 nunez wrote:
hah. stupid... i'm just getting started.
challenge your stance,
entertain some nuance,
a man might be a brit,
but sheep don't give a shit.
you want to sit on it now to prove some point, good for you, i can't blame you for that. but it probably means that we are not seeing eye to eye on what is being discussed.
Could you enlighten me as to exactly where Argentina arrived at this claim?
There is no claim, there never was. No Argentinian has ever lived there.
|
On April 10 2013 11:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 11:35 nunez wrote:
hah. stupid... i'm just getting started.
challenge your stance,
entertain some nuance,
a man might be a brit,
but sheep don't give a shit.
you want to sit on it now to prove some point, good for you, i can't blame you for that. but it probably means that we are not seeing eye to eye on what is being discussed. Could you enlighten me as to exactly where Argentina arrived at this claim? There is no claim, there never was. No Argentinian has ever lived there.
i have already tried to the best of my abilities to explain where i was coming from.
if i did not already succeed, then i think it is best that we give it a rest for now, because it probably means that i am not up to the task for the time being.
|
fair enough nunez i will leave it there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22078110
this is absolutely the worst idea i have ever heard in my entire life.
The Wigan chariman (Wigan being a town in the North West of England) wants minute silences to be held around football grounds (where hundreds of thousands of fans - many of whose parents were put out of work by Thatcher - gather). How does he think that's going to end?
Some people are really naive.
|
|
|
Regarding the editorial about not speaking ill of the dead I think they are missing the point. There is a difference between debating the impact of a politicians policies reasonably like adults and people throwing a party to celebrate the passing of a woman who obviously suffered greatly from dementia and was a little old woman at the time of her passing. It just seems really pathetic to throw a party.
About the Falklands the islanders have voted over and over to stay British and the Argentinians invaded. I don't know why there could even be a debate here. Should the British Gov't just roll over and let the Argentinians have the island and abandon their citizens? If you follow the logic of "It's closer to Argentina" why does Canada not get Greenland?
|
read the article posted above toki.
|
On April 10 2013 13:42 nunez wrote:
read the article posted above toki.
You really think they could possibly pay 1,800 islanders who were British Citizens 475,000 pounds each to leave Britain? After the Argentines invaded?
That would be an incredibly pathetic display from the British bowing down to some random South American country and in the process giving up British soil and abandoning British Citizens.
It would be nearly the same as just giving Kuwait to Iraq. I'm sure there was some justification for Saddam rolling his tanks into Kuwait.
|
On April 10 2013 03:12 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote:
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution. Hardly "utopia". We already do it with social housing, provided to a good chunk of the population. And it's not like there's "innovation" in the housing sector. Who cares if that "market" is distorted?
Market is actually pretty good tool to manage some areas of economy and housing is one of them. Distortions to market are not necessarily bad, problem is most distortions in reality are politically motivated (as opposed to efficiency motivated) and bad. There is also not escaping that in current political systems. Thus it is preferable to have not distorted market if possible in areas where it does its job well.
|
RIP Maggie
Definatley will not be forgotten
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
