How about the Griqua, who are the offspring of the Khoisan and early European settler-colonialists? How were the Europeans able to produce children with people that weren't there?

The fact of the matter is: the land was NOT vacant. No amount of historical revisionism will change that fact.

the value was vacant

@karbon Are you suggesting that the land was and is of little or no value to it's rightful inhabitants? Or that the value placed on it by European invaders is somehow more important?

it's a land of day-1 minecraft dirt houses

So what?

You still can't murder them and take it

@karbon So because a people chooses to engage with nature in a different manner and live according to their own standards, that somehow makes them lesser? Are they somehow unworthy of their homeland because they don't conform to your standards?

^

Shit! Have we been forgetting to put "don't conquer us" clauses in our treaties? Somebody better tell the State Department.

This is like john locke acting like "Oh i support private property but you know fuck Native Americans too dumb to read my book, the Europeans could put their land to better use."

either way, their way of life is going to stop existing when the other countries start advancing unless they refuse to trade with any of the more advanced nations

@karbon What age level do you consider the logic "I'm bigger and stronger so I can take anything I want from you?"

@🌼Kalina🌹🌸🌹Zay🌹🌸🌹Scott🌼 Right? Lel

It sounds about 5 to me

@When Things Aren't Right Go Left Lol

Read the social contract by Rosseau if you want to see why the might makes right argument is bullshit

OR i could summarise the point by saying, a highwayman is more powerful than me and thinks he could put my wealth to better use and so robs me with the might he has.

Does that make the highwayman righteous and therefore not a criminal?

the analogy breaks down because the highwayman isn't bringing technology and development

He has a gun. I dont

He has the superior technology i dont

here in america, we all have guns

He wants to use my wealthto develop himself

No but my point is in this hypothetical scenario is the highway man righteous?

Wait

my point is that it doesnt matter because the highwayman is going to do it regardless of the reasons you try to rationalize to him

Why is the "libertarian" telling us how other people should live there lives

If it were inevitable then i shouldn't resist the highwayman robbing me?

Hmmm

Why resist the inevitable

libertarianism in the US
I don't care about what happens to other countries

I mean you can say that up until other countries force you to interract

as long as it benefits us here

then I care a bit

So you would be hands off if people tried to destroy US interests abroad because it doesnt benefit you?

pretty sure that would affect me here

lmao

But it doesnt benefit you so why should you care about what happens in other countries

aight, replace "benefit" with "affect"