Re: Civil War arguments
 

If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they? You may not use a protractor to answer this question.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want.

[/ QUOTE ]
The ability. Not the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might makes right. I thought we established that [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I knew I'd convince somebody [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they? You may not use a protractor to answer this question.

[/ QUOTE ]

A right is something a person enjoys without the coercion of others. Self-ownership is a right. Property derived from labor or homesteading is a right. Consensual, voluntary exchange is a right. These are all natural.

"Man has the right to exert force if he is more powerful than another man."

This is what you are saying. Logically expand from there and see where you end up.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Anybody can exert force without being coerced into doing so.
So by your definition, is killing a right?

If it is not, can't any act of force be declared a right because of self-defense, national security, etc?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody can exert force without being coerced into doing so.
So by your definition, is killing a right?

If it is not, can't any act of force be declared a right because of self-defense, national security, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions).

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]

The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Now, the confederacy took the Union's property by taking its territory. How is it that the Union was not defending its property?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Total war in modern times was unprecedented. To use ancient examples to justify barbarism is silly. The Civil war and its deployment of new technologies was keenly observed by European powers and adopted. WWI and WW2 are well known to have deployed this military strategy. It is the Civil War which made them "acceptable" or inevitable in society.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

One does not have to move to the land to figure the moral inferiority experienced in an industrial city.

The war and abortion example is very pertinent to the discussion, because you try to justify war on the South because of a moral stance on slavery.

I specifically used the example of a foreign nation which has legitimate authority in itself to declare wars, and not the doings of a lone perpetrator blowing up abortion clinics so we may fall under the principles of a just war.

Now the Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is murder, pure and simple. And the degree that it is occuring today is a slaughter beyond compare in history. Does a foreign nation have a right to start nuking and invading the United States to stop this evil, and which side would you be on?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Peter, you are historically and militarily misinformed if you believe that other than Sherman's march through a limited area of the South, anything like total war took place in the Civil War, i.e. involving targeting the civilian population and centers of economic production (ok add in the naval blocade). There were 3 things that contributed to the bloodiness of the Civil War:

1) The Minet Ball
2) Field Fortifications
3) Stupid Generalship.

And regarding #3, this includes Lee and Grant IMO. If either or both Stonewall Jackson or Sherman had been in charge of their respective sides' military operations, then the war would have ended sooner.