Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemo44x | Hacker News Reader

Why would anyone give up land they conquered if they want to live on it? No one has a right to land outside of borders they can't defend. If you can't defend a border then you aren't a sovereign nation. You're a group of people that need to work with the sovereign nation to allow you to live on the land they conquered.

View on HN

> Why would anyone give up land they conquered if they want to live on it?

To avoid being evil? To be the sort of people who keeps promises?

Wabanakis also fought the British and maintained their freedom.

https://www.penobscothistory.com/historic-preservation/12-tr...

The Penobscot Nation, the oldest government in the Western hemisphere, has never been conquered.

Where do you live? I bet I can conquer your house.

So many people have this delusion that, in a Mad-Max-ian world they'd be a badass sitting on the bones of their enemies when in fact they'd just be dead in a ditch somewhere.

There's a pretty vocal minority on HN (and in tech generally) that are unapologetic supporters of might-makes-right and wholly against the rule of law. It's at least a bit refreshing from the usual set of people who are against the same but too mealy-mouthed to say it outright.

The rule of law is might makes right. Who makes the law? Who enforces it?

The people, in the U.S. We can strike down any federal statute, call a convention, and simply dissolve the federal government and create a new one whenever popularly desired.

There's no monopoly on arms in this country. Every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 is in the militia and we keep a gun behind every blade of grass.

A house is not a sovereign nation.

I’m sure you can’t. The sovereign nation I live under has laws and the ability to enforce them that protect my property. If you tried to take my house then I’d have a tort against you. The nation would find in my favor and imprison you. My home would remain my property.

The concept of all three of borders, nations, and sovereignty as you’re using it are relatively recent innovations that haven’t survived for anywhere near as long as, for example, feudalism did as an organizing structure, and just as feudalism died this latest iteration of “my might makes me right” will, eventually, die as well.

If it takes the species with it, so be it.

It seems to me that might makes right is at least as old as humanity itself. I don't see many animals organizing to resolve disputes peacefully. When it comes to relations between groups that do not engage socially with each other, might makes right seems like the default means to come to agreements.

Child molestation is also at least as old as humanity itself... you have not made a sensible or reasoned argument for continuing to do what we did in the past.

It's not an argument in favor of continuing to do it. It's an argument against the idea that it will stop happening in the future.

It will absolutely stop happening in the future… the only question is will it have stopped because we finally outgrew thinking with our genitals, or will it have stopped because we failed to do so?

Yes, it will only stop when there no longer people to do it. We are in agreement in that.

No longer people or no longer stupid people. I’m an optimist, just not very much of one.

We use force to prevent and punish child molestation. Another win for might.

Realistically we prevent virtually no child molestation by force (or by any other means)… we’re far too busy loudly pretending to care about keeping children safe from imaginary stranger dangers to actually do anything whatsoever to keep them safe from the real dangers represented by their family and other trusted adults.

On average it takes two decades for a victim of childhood sexual abuse to disclose their abuse… successful victories of your imaginary “might” at that remove are virtually non existent relative to the number of victims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com