Stealing resources from another country.

[Allister]

Hypothetical:

In 100 years the advanced technological nations of the world discover a safe, clean power source in the ground. Our societies are transformed and our environments begin to heal themselves, however, our supplies soon run out. The only other place in the world where this energy source exists is in a little isolationist nation. After diplomatic and trade talks this nation refuses to allow our mining industries to extract the power or for us to even buy it off them.

Can we ever be justified in ignoring the sovereignty of this state and go in there regardless?



P.S Although similarities could be draw with Iraq and oil I do not want this to be about that argument, which is a much more complex issue. This question is about resources and a nation's control of its own land.

 

[Bawsed_Simian]

If my government and fellow Brits are foolish enough to squander away our natural resources as has been our tradition, then we reap what we sow when we no longer have those resources.

It is not our right to demand that others who haven't wasted theirs needlessly share their profits. It is simply our duty to provide our lands with a secondary resource or create an open trade system where we provide what we have millions of in trade of what we're running out of.

 

[Jetgirl]

Can we ever be justified in ignoring the sovereignty of this state and go in there regardless?

Short answer: Yes.

I submit that nearly all wars ever fought on the surface of this planet have been, at base, a struggle for resources.

I don't require nations to be suicidal. If they will collapse without taking resources by force I see it as reasonable for them to make the attempt. They may perish in the process however, or be subsumed or changed entirely, and that would be the given risk.

 

[Billnew]

Jetgirl is correct.

Most wars are fought over food or other resources that a soceity decide they need, and are worth fighting over.

Society will try to negotiate, but if the nation will not sell, they will be invaded. This is not to say the bigger nation will pay for the resource
out the nose, if it will prevent war. But eventually, the bigger nation will move in.
Goes back to evalution, the stronger will survive, and the weaker will die off.

 

[chaz345]

Interesting question. Let's look at it in a minaturized scale. Is it justified to take from an individual who is able to afford it, in order to serve those in need with the ultimate goal being the betterment of society as a whole?

Ok so if the basic principle that the betterment of the whole justifies such taking, then one has to say that it is fine since the exact same thing is happening.

What's interesting though is that those most likely to say that it is never ok to take from a nation in those circumstances for that reason are many of the same ones that most strongly advocate doing it when the supplier is an individual.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Hypothetical:

In 100 years the advanced technological nations of the world discover a safe, clean power source in the ground. Our societies are transformed and our environments begin to heal themselves, however, our supplies soon run out. The only other place in the world where this energy source exists is in a little isolationist nation. After diplomatic and trade talks this nation refuses to allow our mining industries to extract the power or for us to even buy it off them.

Can we ever be justified in ignoring the sovereignty of this state and go in there regardless?



P.S Although similarities could be draw with Iraq and oil I do not want this to be about that argument, which is a much more complex issue. This question is about resources and a nation's control of its own land.

Well if you are the United States, the answer is obvious:

Invade!

 

[MachZer0]

Short answer: Yes.

I submit that nearly all wars ever fought on the surface of this planet have been, at base, a struggle for resources.

I don't require nations to be suicidal. If they will collapse without taking resources by force I see it as reasonable for them to make the attempt. They may perish in the process however, or be subsumed or changed entirely, and that would be the given risk.

Shouldn't we send Jimmy Carter there first to let hiim try to talk them out of their resources?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Can we ever be justified in ignoring the sovereignty of this state and go in there regardless?

Since the victor writes the history books I'd say we can be justified as long as we win.

 

[Verv]

Should the majority of people be deprived in the name of what is 'sovereignty?'

Socialist economic policy works on the principal that even though a very small class owns the property it is not fair for them to exclusively have access to it and exclusively have the opportunities in the society.

By any Socialist standard they should not be able to lord it over our heads.

I am surprised leftists, who are so anti-US, often would side with an unjust sovereignty that deprives the greater society; they have taken their foreign policy and made it contradictory with their own economic policy.

 

[Billnew]

Chaz beat me to my next comment.

Is it ok to steal from an individual, but not a country?
What ever you say about the country can be said about the individual, and vice versa.

example: The individual isn't alone in the country, and had others help him earn it. A country isn't alone in the world and probably didn't survive without help from outside.

 

[Jetgirl]

Shouldn't we send Jimmy Carter there first to let hiim try to talk them out of their resources?

I think we're assuming here that Carter has already failed in his attempt.

Shocking, I know.

 

[CCGirl]

Natural resources belong to the people, as a collective, of said country.

 

[Jetgirl]

Natural resources belong to the people, as a collective, of said country.

Ok, great.

So if my country collectively has no, say, food, and your country collectively has a lot of food I can't get through negotiation, what then?

 

[CCGirl]

We are talking about natural resources, not food.

 

[morningstar2651]

Ok, great.

So if my country collectively has no, say, food, and your country collectively has a lot of food I can't get through negotiation, what then?

Well, I have a modest proposal for you.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled

 

[Jetgirl]

We are talking about natural resources, not food.

Food is the penultimate product of natural resources.

You don't get very far without it.

 

[Jetgirl]

Well, I have a modest proposal for you.

Personally, I think we should eat the rude.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Personally, I think we should eat the rude.

Or we collectivize the agriculture...