|
|
#81
12-22-2005, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Athenian Democracy circa Pericles\' time
[ QUOTE ]
It's kind of amazing that this is the argument for how things "should" be... I'm pretty sure that this is how things are. By sticking around, ie, not emigrating, you are accepting the polity's laws and rules. It's usually referred to as a tacit choice, or an implied choice. [/ QUOTE ] Situation: you're in third grade. There's a bully in your class. By showing up to class, are you "tacitly consenting" to atomic wedgies? Why does some overgrown bully have the right to tax you because you happen to be born in his self-proclaimed dominion? 
|
|
#82
12-23-2005, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that people want force used on them, but that people will use force against others out of necessity. I would contend that human nature is the same as every other animal and plant in the world. The most important thing to something that is living, is to preserve itself. Look at the animals in the wild, they kill each other constantly because they feel that it would be better for them. I look out my window, and I see ducks that live in a large group, fight all the time because of food and sex. I agree that it is in our interests to not kill each other, but without anything to prevent us, we will. You say that the majority will punish the minority that uses force, but they will do so by using force. [/ QUOTE ] What you fail to note is the difference between *initiation* of the use of force and the use of force *in response* to force. [ QUOTE ] An agreement to not use force, and punish those that do, is government. [/ QUOTE ] No. Government *REQUIRES* the use of (unprovoked) force.
|
|
#83
12-23-2005, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why wait until secession then? [/ QUOTE ] A large part of the reason the South seceded when it did was that the North was blocking expasnion of slavery into new western states which would tip the balance of power in congress where anti-slavery states would have the votes to do that. [/ QUOTE ] I've thought about this response, and the others in the same vein, those giving convoluted explanations trying to justify union aggression, for a long time. What you're telling me is that you're defending a system that, in order to outlaw slavery, needed half of the participants to withdraw from the system, then have the other half invade and conquer the secessionists, using conscripted soldiers, and killing 600,000 in the process. Man, what a system. Where do I sign up?
|
|
#84
12-23-2005, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] The Union is not an individual. It has no rights. You speak of nations as if they are actors that can actually make decisions. I really hope that you concede this logic. Because if you don't, you are essentially saying that that the government has the right to confinscate everyone's land. Hey, it's their territory, everyone else is just trespassing.
|
|
#86
12-23-2005, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
Certainly the bloodiness of the Civil war can be attributed to the:
"1) The Minet Ball 2) Field Fortifications 3) Stupid Generalship." But it is specifically Sherman's March which was the first real implementation of the total war concept. And this concept is absolutely immoral. It is more immoral than slavery, and has since contributed to more death and destruction than American slavery ever did or possibly could have. The total war concept was also implemented against the Plains Indians by destruction of the Buffalo. It is an example of using a greater evil to stamp out a smaller evil.
|
|
#87
12-23-2005, 01:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
No. Government *REQUIRES* the use of (unprovoked) force. [/ QUOTE ] Why do governments require the use of force? My definition of government comes straight from Hobbes and Locke. Are you trying to say that a government is only a government when there is killing? How about if there was a government, but there was not taxation and no war; would that NOT be a government in your eyes? It seems to me that your bias against government is not letting you see what they actually are.
|
|
#88
12-23-2005, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
The Union is not one person, it is many people. Are you saying they didn't have rights because they were a group rather than one person? [/ QUOTE ] The individuals have rights. The government doesn't. It's that simple.
|
|
#90
12-23-2005, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No. Government *REQUIRES* the use of (unprovoked) force. [/ QUOTE ] Why do governments require the use of force? My definition of government comes straight from Hobbes and Locke. Are you trying to say that a government is only a government when there is killing? How about if there was a government, but there was not taxation and no war; would that NOT be a government in your eyes? It seems to me that your bias against government is not letting you see what they actually are. [/ QUOTE ] Without taxes, the only way the government can support itself is through slave labor, which is force.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
