I thought your point that the argument itself was totally unknown to you. The one in which the United States bought, stole and killed for and then using for monetary gain to increase their holdings again and again is the argument you must have come across as being valid to be returned to the people it was stolen from/bought with coloured gear/murdered for that should be returned.
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
yes you can. history isn't set in stone. just because something is doesn't mean it has to remain. the entire concept of redistribution of wealth revolves around the idea of wealth taxation. what do you think that means in practice?
I’m for it.
Oates… what?
Okay, so, again… you gonna give England back to the Danes? Then kick them off to give it back to the Anglo-Saxons? Then kick them off… etc?
no, i'd suggest giving it to the people who are currently alive and living here. you know, like thomas paine suggested two hundred years ago when the french revolution was kicking off.
I'm just going by your previous posts. You can't claim the idea as absurd unless you are totally unaware of the Native Americans or Aboriginals campaign to reclaim what is now in many places privately held hands unless of course you've never come across it before which I find hard to believe you've not come across the concept before. It seems to completely banjax you.
So if the royals had to pay property taxes on their vast land holdings and that resulted in them going bankrupt you would be ok in the state taking the land in lieu of the taxes?
Yes, I am aware of Native Americans wanting to get their lands back… but it isn’t going to happen and it is absurd to think it is.
to use the ship metaphor. it's like saying the captaincy is inherited not by merit but by nepotism and that you ought not change that because it already happened. if people thought like that there would never have been any emancipation movements.
it is, ironically, close to the uber republican ideal of the holy constitution that should never change, except when it suits them.
it is, ironically, close to the uber republican ideal of the holy constitution that should never change, except when it suits them.
If they had to pay property tax and couldn’t, sure. But they don’t have to, and voluntarily do… so that’s rather moot.
It is of course your opinion that it is absurd to think it might happen. However I doubt that the desire and idea held by the American Natives to be an absurd concept or one that could be new to you.
I’m fairly certain the belief in inheritance rights predated, was contemporary with, and continued after, emancipation movements.
Cool.
So if you’re going to connect that to the modern day United Kingdom, who has the legitimate claim to Cornwall?
Right now? Probably Jamaica.
Personally I find the royal family as an institution rather repulsive. But I think if some one is sad because some one else has died that shouldn’t be mocked. But I think people should keep perspective, approximately 150,000 died in the world today. And the person who gets the most sadness is one of the most privileged humans ever to have lived. Who died in a castle after a really long life with her every need tended to, paid for by people poorer then her. Personally I think the out pouring of sadness for her shows the issues we have as a society. But that’s just my opinion.
I'm connecting your seeming lack of knowledge of the very similar concepts.
The common people within the Islands of Great Britain and if it be their choice to distribute it as part reparations to previous colonies, so be it.
yes, with the exception that every emancipation movement implies less inheritance by those who already owned things. slavery ended. so the slaves weren't inherited. the working class and women's movements meant that the share of the vote given over to the old aristocratic and mercantile class was diluted. the 1960s meant that public land became more public inasmuch as black people were now also able to be viewed as actual people.
there's a difference between passing on a family home, typically modest, to a network of kin and inheriting the majority of land a country possesses as well as the right to be head of state. you have to be logically blind to argue in favour of this kind of inheritance.
You’re not doing a good job of it. The common people of Britain aren’t analogous to Native Americans and their claims on America’s territory.
Who are the Native Cornish people that Cornwall should be relinquished to?
the people who live there?
I believe I am doing a good job of expressing my opinion, I don't believe you have the right to demand something I have never offered.
Humans aren’t legitimate property. Land and homes are.
That rather undermines his point about the Native Americans then, doesn’t it?
I think I have the right to ask you to take your opinion to its logical conclusion. You are, after all, the one who introduced Native Americans and their claims to ancestral lands to this discussion.I believe I am doing a good job of expressing my opinion, I don't believe you have the right to demand something I have never offered.
humans were legitimate property, though, weren't they? if that hadn't been challenged then it would still be as it was. the same goes for land and homes when that land and those homes evidently belong to the people.
it's common sense, afterall. see the tory party and current political , etonian, class for more proof.
also, what makes land a legitimate property? only the custom which prevails in any given day. land is the property of the people who live on it, the entire people, not just a few. because i'm not in favour of massive land barons retaining their portfolios either, or of a few billionaires owning more than 50% of an entire country.
The things she must have seen and experienced. The world isn't a better place without her
This thread has gone exactly as expected.
Again, it is one concept shared by two instances that you seem to have trouble understanding.
1) No.
2) You realize that I’m not obligated to agree with everything Paine wrote simply because he’s an American, right? I feel he was hypocritical in Rights of Man, considering he argued for inalienable rights (aka: life, liberty, property) and then argued that a group should be stripped of said property.
Again, you have expressed the concept to be ridiculous while two instances, one on your doorstep seemed to be overlooked by yourself.
slavery was never a thing, then.
Winston Churchill to Liz Truss
Harry Truman to Joe Biden
And that’s just during her reign.
Charles III’s coronation will be the 2nd ever televised British coronation because hers was the 1st
he argued against the absurdity of one group retaining, by noble birth, the vast majority of a nation's resources. paine was an internationalist, anyway, i don't quote him because he was "american", born in england iirc, but because he's pertinent to the question at hand.
@Carolina Red You can't seriously be going to bat for the institution of monarchy in 2022?
Is this some kind of misplaced romanticism as a lover of history, or are you just too hardcoded with the idea that republicans = bad?
Is this some kind of misplaced romanticism as a lover of history, or are you just too hardcoded with the idea that republicans = bad?
…is that this thread is about the UK.
Or am I somehow obligated to always mention the USA in any discussion?
For the monarchy itself? Honestly could not care less.@Carolina Red You can't seriously be going to bat for the institution of monarchy in 2022?
Is this some kind of misplaced romanticism as a lover of history, or are you just too hardcoded with the idea that republicans = bad?
I simply think that the British monarchy is not something that can be easily and cleanly done away with, and their property holdings are a major reason why I believe that.
You stated the idea to be silly, that's an opinion, not fact, you seemed unaware that it is a concept repeated in your country.
The idea is not silly, the idea that a solution might have to be found is what you find ridiculous and no-one is asking you to come up with it.
Winston Churchill to Liz Truss
Harry Truman to Joe Biden
And that’s just during her reign.
Charles III’s coronation will be the 2nd ever televised British coronation because hers was the 1st
It's impressive. All in one human being. And it's now gone.