The dark side of .io

[0] http://www.amny.com/entertainment/mike-bloomberg-domains-reg...

According to Wikipedia, there is a commissioner with the Foreign Office that acts as administrator, but that commissioner is directly appointed by the Queen [2].

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealing_a_Nation

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_British_India...

The right to occupy some specific geographic coordinates is not a human right.

This applies at every scale from a single building demolished to make way for a highway, to an entire country's worth of refugees.

So the big problem is not that Britain evicted the Chagossians and is refusing to let them back. That was just a case of eminent domain. The problem is that Britain and Mauritius never properly compensated them and didn't ensure that they could make a living in their new home.

If redistributing the profits from .io to these people would make goddess of justice smile, fine, let's do it. But enough with the "it's my ancestral home!" bullshit.

As the article mentions, the Chagossians weren't even the "native" or "original" population of the islands. The French had enslaved them and brought them there by force, and the rest were migrant workers from India. None of them had any right to claim those islands as their home, except that they happened to live there at the time when Britain decided to vacate the islands.

In fact, none of us have any right to claim any piece of real estate as our own. The law, of course, grants certain people certain rights with respect to land, for the sake of convenience and economic efficiency. But morally, it's all arbitrary. Why does it matter whether someone has lived on a piece of land for three generations or three hundred? What about nomadic peoples who claim a large swath of land but only use parts of it sporadically? Besides, virtually all habitable land on Earth has been conquered multiple times by different groups of people, all of whom might have some sort of claim on that land.

Whenever we hear about some group of people who complain that their house, village, country, etc. was taken from them, the location in question rarely has anything more than sentimental value for the oldest members of that group. What really matters are human rights (e.g. right to participate in the governance of whatever territory they happen to live in) and the ability to make a stable living. Without those, returning the land to them won't make their circumstances any better. Nostalgia doesn't put food on your table. On the other hand, once you have rights and a stable occupation, over time you learn to stop fussing about your location.

The idea that some people have some sort of god-given right to occupy some specific geographic coordinates has caused so much bloodshed, unnecessary grief, and opportunity for ideologues to take advantage of innocent people throughout human history. Can't we just stop doing that already?

edit Whoops, I meant Libya.