Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (52338)	10/19/2006 7:22:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 90947

It is suspected that submarines (from Russia and perhaps France)violated our sovereignty but that does not mean our claim to the waters is bogus! The fact that they go through disputed waters doesn't make the claim bogus, but it does make it "the current reality". As for "violated our sovereignty" those going through the waters would probably disagree. You have a default claim to the car you own. Yes but the issue is whether Canada "owns the car". You don't have a default claim to a car who's ownership is disputed. In the actual case, there isn't "own or don't own", there is "have as part of territorial waters" "have as part of exclusive economic zone", or "don't own at all" (the last not being pushed by anyone). The fact that you have solid agreement that the "don't own at all" idea is not true, doesn't make "have as territorial waters" the default. A better analogy than owning a car might be a piece of land. You might own the mineral and water rights. You might own the land itself, you might own both. Even if you do own both their might be a legal right for people to pass through the parcel of land. Everyone involved agrees Canada owns "the mineral and water rights". The dispute is first over whether Canada actually "owns the land" (is it territorial waters or not?) and secondly if Canada does "own the land" is there a right to travel across it anyway. Owning the "mineral rights" doesn't make the claim that you "own the land" itself the default claim, and doesn't address the issue of a right to passage across "the land" at all. Claiming that you own the land and thus the default is that you own the land is begging the question. "Claiming one side is fictional, is pretty much the same as supporting one side" Not really. It is the same as totally dismissing one side. If one side's right, the other side is wrong. Unambiguously supporting one side is dismissing the other.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next