Civil War arguments

XxGodJrxX · #1 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?

The Don · #2 12-23-2005, 01:00 AM

[ 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.

XxGodJrxX · #3 12-23-2005, 01:06 AM

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?

The Don · #4 12-23-2005, 01:13 AM

[ 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.

XxGodJrxX · #5 12-23-2005, 01:16 AM

The government is people. People are the government. How can you not see that?

The Don · #6 12-23-2005, 01:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The government is people. People are the government. How can you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

"People" are not individuals. Only individuals have rights. Groups of people don't make decisions, individuals within the groups do. Unless 100% of the people agree on something, some individuals' rights are being infringed upon. They (the individuals) are being forced to do something against their will. That is why "people" don't have rights and that is why government doesn't have rights.

XxGodJrxX · #7 12-23-2005, 01:29 AM

Let me start off by saying that I think it is a ridiculous notion that a person has rights, but people don't. But it's okay, I love a challenge.

According to you, governments have no rights. The Confederacy was a new government. Then, it logically follows, that the Confederacy had no rights. So why are you complaining that the Union waged war against them? The Confederates had no rights to life, liberty, or property, ACCORDING TO YOU. Therefore, killing them and taking their liberty and property did not violate any rights.

I'll wait for you to change your definition again, although I don't see how you could. Either the Union had rights, or the Confederacy did not.

SheetWise · #8 12-23-2005, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The government is people. People are the government. How can you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Under the rules, the governments "just" powers are derived by the consent of the people. Under the rules, there was no consent to the powers the government had assumed. At that point, under the rules, it was no longer a government of the people -- and hasn't been ever since.