You can't see the difference Derek? Oil fields are owned by the countries on top of the oil fields.
In the freedom-loving countries, what we understand is that owning property, including oneself, is the foundation of freedom. Freedom means little there are laws circumscribing personal decisions and people are not able to own property to dispose of as they see fit.
If Saudi Arabia decided to cut off the supply of oil, you think the USA would be okay to go and get what is rightfully theirs because they want it or need it. That attitude no better than Osama's. In fact, I have greater sympathy with Osama's 'get out of my country' demand than 'we'll take the bloody oil if you won't sell it to us'.
On the oxygen idea, oxygen is in the air and that's a matter of commonly owned property, which means it's likely to suffer the tragedy of the commons, which some say is already happening in that CO2 pollution is alleged to be destroying the earth. Not quite the same as cutting off the oxygen, but similar.
Since that's commonly-owned property, somebody polluting it could be said to be damaging USA property and defence of that air supply would be reasonable.
But going and stealing somebody else's property because you want it!! Tsk, tsk!! What's your address? I need a tv and I don't like the price you are offering. Come to think of it, some people need a house, so I guess you should expect some people to move in from Bangladesh and other crowded places.
That's the problem with 'interests' in the absence of morals and ethics.
Mqurice |
