LibertyCat posted:

They can demand sovereignty, insist that they never signed a treaty, and that the Australia Government has no claim - but if you can't pass your own laws , collect your own taxes and boot out everyone who isn't a "citizen" you're obviously not a Sovereign Nation. Recognizing the "Continuing Sovereignty of First Nations" (as NIRS announces each day) is ignoring reality. Actual sovereignty is a pipe dream.

Let's be blunt; when the Europeans arrived, they were not greeted by a collection of civilized nations. Australia was inhabited by illiterate stone-age tribes that could never have defended their homeland from any settlement by other groups. I wish it hadn't involved bloodshed but I don't see any feasible way the original inhabitants could have kept ownership of the continent into the 1900s.

Negligent posted:

we should all own guns to protect from home invaders, because if you can't defend it is not really yours.

If you don't have a gun, that guy breaking in and killing you for your TV is just taking what is rightfully his.

Negligent posted:

we should all own guns to protect from home invaders, because if you can't defend it is not really yours.

If you don't have a gun, that guy breaking in and killing you for your TV is just taking what is rightfully his.

LibertyCat posted:

They can demand sovereignty, insist that they never signed a treaty, and that the Australia Government has no claim - but if you can't pass your own laws , collect your own taxes and boot out everyone who isn't a "citizen" you're obviously not a Sovereign Nation. Recognizing the "Continuing Sovereignty of First Nations" (as NIRS announces each day) is ignoring reality. Actual sovereignty is a pipe dream.

Let's be blunt; when the Europeans arrived, they were not greeted by a collection of civilized nations. Australia was inhabited by illiterate stone-age tribes that could never have defended their homeland from any settlement by other groups. I wish it hadn't involved bloodshed but I don't see any feasible way the original inhabitants could have kept ownership of the continent into the 1900s.

hooman posted:

LibertyCat posted:

They can demand sovereignty, insist that they never signed a treaty, and that the Australia Government has no claim - but if you can't pass your own laws , collect your own taxes and boot out everyone who isn't a "citizen" you're obviously not a Sovereign Nation. Recognizing the "Continuing Sovereignty of First Nations" (as NIRS announces each day) is ignoring reality. Actual sovereignty is a pipe dream.

Let's be blunt; when the Europeans arrived, they were not greeted by a collection of civilized nations. Australia was inhabited by illiterate stone-age tribes that could never have defended their homeland from any settlement by other groups. I wish it hadn't involved bloodshed but I don't see any feasible way the original inhabitants could have kept ownership of the continent into the 1900s.

LibertyCat posted:

They can demand sovereignty, insist that they never signed a treaty, and that the Australia Government has no claim - but if you can't pass your own laws , collect your own taxes and boot out everyone who isn't a "citizen" you're obviously not a Sovereign Nation. Recognizing the "Continuing Sovereignty of First Nations" (as NIRS announces each day) is ignoring reality. Actual sovereignty is a pipe dream.

Let's be blunt; when the Europeans arrived, they were not greeted by a collection of civilized nations. Australia was inhabited by illiterate stone-age tribes that could never have defended their homeland from any settlement by other groups. I wish it hadn't involved bloodshed but I don't see any feasible way the original inhabitants could have kept ownership of the continent into the 1900s.

LibertyCat posted:

They can demand sovereignty, insist that they never signed a treaty, and that the Australia Government has no claim - but if you can't pass your own laws , collect your own taxes and boot out everyone who isn't a "citizen" you're obviously not a Sovereign Nation. Recognizing the "Continuing Sovereignty of First Nations" (as NIRS announces each day) is ignoring reality. Actual sovereignty is a pipe dream.

LibertyCat posted:

Let's be blunt; when the Europeans arrived, they were not greeted by a collection of civilized nations. Australia was inhabited by illiterate stone-age tribes that could never have defended their homeland from any settlement by other groups. I wish it hadn't involved bloodshed but I don't see any feasible way the original inhabitants could have kept ownership of the continent into the 1900s.

Negligent posted:

Going armed to a place to know is inhabited by others is textbook definition of invasion

LibertyCat posted:

As I said earlier I don't have a problem calling it an Invasion, although it'd have to be the easiest invasion on record.

asio posted:

Illiterate - wrong

quote:

Stone-age - white man category

quote:

Defended from settlement - happened, lots of white people were killed, but the boats kept coming with more white people.

quote:

You're talking about a group of peoples that has the least evidence of large-scale destructive wars, had solved the population crisis, invented sustainable living on a continent scale, and in Thursday Island formed a southern Constantinople of international trade.

quote:

What did white man bring? Individualism as religion.

quote:

Oh yeah and white man has slowly been losing since federation, genocide was so much easier when Australia was a colony

asio posted:

Uh it wasn't easy? And this is from the white man side too

LibertyCat posted:

I don't recall anyone finding aboriginal written texts dating prior to European settlement, have you got a link?

quote:

That doesn't make it invalid.

quote:

It wasn't purely a numbers game and you know it. Europeans had massively advanced militaries (in comparison) and had greater numbers due to agriculture, cities, and the other hallmarks of civilization.

And what did it get them? As soon as another culture (with access to modern technology) decided it was mildly interested in taking over, they were done for. The Invasion was so easy most people don't consider it one because it was so massively one-sided.

As well as a few thousand years of technological developments. No-one has (on a large scale) decided giving up books, metal tools houses etc is a step forward.

I don't follow you, i don't want anyone to experience genocide.

Solemn Sloth posted:

Shocked to learn that a libertarian is really racist

sidviscous posted:

"Force, my friends, is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived"

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Anyone got American libertarian screeds about how the 'homesteading' of America was the only just theft of property?

LibertyCat posted:

Which invasions had a higher km^2 territory gained : aggressor death ratio?

LibertyCat posted:

Which invasions had a higher km^2 territory gained : aggressor death ratio?

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

The Anschluss?

quote:

Senator Arthur Sinodinos' demand that references to him be removed from an explosive NSW Electoral Commission statement about a political donations scandal has been firmly rejected by the commission.
...
Mr Sinodinos has also denied fresh allegations the NSW Liberals were pursuing banned political donors before the 2011 state election.

Questioned about this on Thursday morning, Mr Sinodinos claimed that despite its title – "State campaign 2011 potential donors" – a list which he helped draw up, was used to target donors for both federal and state election campaigns.

But Fairfax Media can reveal the list was created on November 9, 2010, almost three months after the August 21 federal election.

Emails tendered at a landmark inquiry by Independent Commission Against Corruption in 2014 reveal that Mr Sinodinos, at the time the party's state treasurer, was personally involved in drawing up the list and assigning party officials to "solicit" potential donations.

Also on the list of targeted donors was Australian Water Holdings.

The entry puts into focus his testimony before ICAC that he had no knowledge of AWH donations to the party.

"Does that suggest to you that you did not know that the company of which you were deputy chairman was making donations to the political party of which you were treasurer?" Mr Sinodinos was asked. "It was not a process I involved myself in," he replied.
...
On Wednesday night Mr Sinodinos was the guest speaker at a federal fundraiser organised by the Rose Bay branch of the Liberal party.

"The elephant in the room was not spoken about," said one guest about the donation imbroglio.

Another was very put out about being a banned donor due to being a pub owner: "I can't donate to the NSW Libs but any brothel owner can? Who's more reputable?" he said.

Anidav posted:

Little did the British know that by doing this they created Australia. Go back in time and show Captain Cook this thread, problem solved.
I remember a bunch of lovely shows on the History Channel saying that the British were a mere few days away from being beaten by the Dutch. Speaking dutch would be pretty rad.

Anidav posted:

Little did the British know that by doing this they created Australia. Go back in time and show Captain Cook this thread, problem solved.
I remember a bunch of lovely shows on the History Channel saying that the British were a mere few days away from being beaten by the Dutch. Speaking dutch would be pretty rad.

Skellybones posted:

I can't believe how good this thread is!