The Egyptian military has saved Egypt...

[jonny2mad]

your starting to get it Andysir


"From Sandy Hook to London tower From Jaffa to Japan , They can take who have the power They may keep who can"

Bookish arguments philosphy is oft trumped by might by force .

If that wasnt the case we would have armys of lawyers equal to the armys of soldiers most govt call on and they would be the last call, not the atom bombs and the tanks

[Little John]

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

That much is clear.

Perhaps a more interesting question is do you consider the land to be the common property (that which, as you mentioned, was taken and held by force) or do you consider the fruits of the organisation of government to be the common property (roads, schools, the NHS - that which was created by a common purpose... or at least the purpose of the majority)? It seems difficult to find any rule to justify ownership of land that was taken by force short of the absolute might makes right, the latter might be easier.

Don't flatter yourself, the reason I had no idea what you were taking about is because you had written diversionary gibberish.

The land that was taken by force was stolen land. However, here we find ourselves centuries later with some of that land still in the ownership of the descendants of the men who stole it and some of it at least in common ownership, which is as good as we are ever going to get to returning it to the people from whom it was stolen. Furthermore, that common ownership is funded and maintained by common contributions, otherwise known as general taxation.

Jonny2mad is correct in asserting that might is often the final arbiter of ownership. Jonny2mad is incorrect, though, in thinking that this is somehow a natural consequence of being human. Furthermore, the extent to which the "might is right" forces in the world may be countered is by first calling the devil by his name. Open borders serve the long term interest of only the rich and powerful. They only temporarily serve the interests of the poor who come here and they are directly against the interests of those who already live here. The land and other common resources are ours, the people's of this collection of islands known as the UK and, as long as we are taxed to pay for it, it is not for the state, in the absence of consultation with our wishes, to dictate to us with whom we may share it. Or, at least, it can, but only at the expense of a terrible reckoning at some point and that reckoning is coming.

[AndySir]

Are you trying to claim that we pay for the upkeep of our natural resources - what upkeep do fishing grounds require? Or land. They are the source of our wealth. Perhaps you meant we created the infrastructure to exploit them? Or was that more likely done by private owners? There's no moral justification there for ownership by the state any more than there is in theft.

The fruits of the welfare state are paid for by taxation, as is infrastructure and security but access to the welfare state is not covered by open borders. Any argument that comes from "we paid for x..." has to fail until we are talking about opening the thing we paid for to any and all comers. Of course there's no particular reason to exclude people if they're paying their way. The argument has to come from resources.

You might argue that through unpleasant of history that we have administrative responsibility for this land, but he justification for this must be by international consent - which we kind of have. Maybe

[jonny2mad]

I think might being the final arbiter of land ownership is a natural consequence of being organic life animal’s, lots of other animals are territorial.

Those that are weak or unlucky or outnumbered lose to animals that are stronger.

You could talk to some Palestinians or some Comanche or Sioux or some Australian aborigines, actually the Native Americans and aborigines have won some land rights through a feeling of guilt and through protests. But mankind or some sort of divine law hasn’t stepped in and given them their land back, now it belongs to someone else until which time that people lose it

[adam2]

To return to the topic, It has just been anounced that that the Egyptian prime minister has unexoectedly resigned.

That is unlikely to promote peace and stability.

[PS_RalphW]

I think that Egypt is about to go from net exporter to net importer of NG this year. And with AQ once more bombing tourists, it is hard to see how much longer SA can afford to keep bailing them out.

Ukraine is looking more and more like a car crash. Good piece by Orlov, he suggests all parties have been blind-sided on this one.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014- ... er-ukraine


I think 2014 is shaping up to be another 'interesting' year

[PS_RalphW]

Looks like ISIS have a new (old) target

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... omb-attack

Egypt is the original home of the philosophy that underpins ISIS et al.,
looks like they have finally got some traction on the ground.

It was attacks on the tourist trade in Egypt that first brought this movement to the attention of the MSM in the 1990s and triggered the first collapse of the Egyptian economy. Are we coming full circle?