Civil War arguments

XxGodJrxX · #1 12-21-2005, 12:09 AM

I would normally write a detailed answer, but after yesterday's hissy fit about governments, I am going to write a simple one.

Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want. In the case of the Civil War: muskets, cannons, and horses. Do you see why?

tylerdurden · #2 12-21-2005, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would normally write a detailed answer, but after yesterday's hissy fit about governments, I am going to write a simple one.

Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want. In the case of the Civil War: muskets, cannons, and horses. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, sorry, I don't see why.

BCPVP · #3 12-21-2005, 01:08 AM

Sounds like might makes right is his argument.

SheetWise · #4 12-22-2005, 07:48 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]
The ability. Not the right.

XxGodJrxX · #5 12-22-2005, 09:18 PM

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

The Don · #6 12-22-2005, 10:01 PM

[ 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.

XxGodJrxX · #7 12-22-2005, 10:08 PM

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?

The Don · #8 12-22-2005, 10:11 PM

[ 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).

XxGodJrxX · #9 12-22-2005, 10:22 PM

[ 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?

MMMMMM · #10 12-23-2005, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rights are what you know in your heart that others would not want to be wrongly dispossessed of--just as there are some things of your own: your life, your liberty and your essential property--of which you would not want to be wrongly dispossessed by others.