|
|
|
|
#1
12-19-2005, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
Ok, here is a synopsis. In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people. In the case of the American Revolution, it was the King/Parliament. In the case of the Civil War, it was the Northern mob (remember, democracy is mob rule). So you believe that the colonists were more justified in opposing British power than the Confederates were in opposing Northern power? Why is this?
Also, you still have not answered my question about Lincoln. How do you justify killing over a half million men to "preserve the union"? 
|
|
#2
12-19-2005, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
The justification is quite simple really. Keeping the southern territory was in the best interests of the United States. In the case of the Revolutionary War, it was in the best interests of the Americans to be independent, and in the best interests of the British to keep their colonies. The current administration perceives that it is in our best interests to take Iraq.
What other justification do you need? If the country is cut in half, then the chances of being destroyed by other enemies doubles. The Confederacy would have eventually gained much more power and presented a real threat to the Union. Then when the United States loses a big war, somebody like you will say that Lincoln was a bad president because he failed to protect the union, which led to its eventual defeat. There are no "morals" or any such thing that govern whether wars are right or not. On a global scale, the world is essentially anarchy, and therefore, no justication is ever even needed to do anything, since nations do not have to answer to anybody. So stop saying that killing so many people is the reason that Lincoln was a bad president, and DO tell us why it was not in the best interests of the United States.
|
|
#3
12-19-2005, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
The justification is quite simple really. Keeping the southern territory was in the best interests of the United States. In the case of the Revolutionary War, it was in the best interests of the Americans to be independent, and in the best interests of the British to keep their colonies. The current administration perceives that it is in our best interests to take Iraq. What other justification do you need? If the country is cut in half, then the chances of being destroyed by other enemies doubles. The Confederacy would have eventually gained much more power and presented a real threat to the Union. Then when the United States loses a big war, somebody like you will say that Lincoln was a bad president because he failed to protect the union, which led to its eventual defeat. There are no "morals" or any such thing that govern whether wars are right or not. On a global scale, the world is essentially anarchy, and therefore, no justication is ever even needed to do anything, since nations do not have to answer to anybody. So stop saying that killing so many people is the reason that Lincoln was a bad president, and DO tell us why it was not in the best interests of the United States. [/ QUOTE ] The ultimate "might makes right" post. Don't worry about whether an act is criminal or not, if it works to YOUR benefit, and you can get away with it, then do it. Awesome. Thank you for illustrating the real evil of statism.
|
|
#4
12-19-2005, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
The ultimate "might makes right" post. Don't worry about whether an act is criminal or not, if it works to YOUR benefit, and you can get away with it, then do it. Awesome. Thank you for illustrating the real evil of statism. [/ QUOTE ] A crime is only comitted when there is a law that is broken. There are no ACTUAL laws in the international arena. Therefore, it follows that there are not really any crimes. International laws and the UN are not actually laws in my opinion, since they do not have any effect on any but the weakest states. I find it hard to believe, that in a web-forum populated by so called "anarchists", that there would be all this talk about the Civil War being immoral and criminal. Newsflash: when there is anarchy, might ALWAYS makes right. If that was not the case, then the United States would not invest 25% of its total GDP in the military. Don't ever underestiamte the persuasive power of a big gun. I may be getting side-tracked here, but if there is ever a state where there is actual anarchy, like some of the people on this forum advocate, it would collapse very quickly. Inside, there would be a Hobbesian slaughter, and either a new government would be formed, or another country will come in and take over. THAT is why government is necessary, and saying that "so-and-so was a bad president because he did too much" won't win over that many supporters. Presidents are bad when they do things that are detrimental to the country, not when they do too much.
|
|
#5
12-19-2005, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
A crime is only comitted when there is a law that is broken. [/ QUOTE ] So before anybody wrote down "thou shall not kill" it was right and just to murder? But after someone wrote it down it was suddenly not OK? [ QUOTE ] I find it hard to believe, that in a web-forum populated by so called "anarchists", that there would be all this talk about the Civil War being immoral and criminal. [/ QUOTE ] Why? Possibly because you have a limited view of anarchy. Not all anarchists desire chaos. [ QUOTE ] Newsflash: when there is anarchy, might ALWAYS makes right. If that was not the case, then the United States would not invest 25% of its total GDP in the military. Don't ever underestiamte the persuasive power of a big gun. [/ QUOTE ] What you're saying is might makes might. Duh. [ QUOTE ] I may be getting side-tracked here, but if there is ever a state where there is actual anarchy, like some of the people on this forum advocate, it would collapse very quickly. Inside, there would be a Hobbesian slaughter, and either a new government would be formed, or another country will come in and take over. [/ QUOTE ] Why? It is possible for people to cooperate voluntarily to defend against aggressors. What magic does government bring to this effort? [ QUOTE ] THAT is why government is necessary, and saying that "so-and-so was a bad president because he did too much" won't win over that many supporters. Presidents are bad when they do things that are detrimental to the country, not when they do too much. [/ QUOTE ] Bank robbery is good, *as long as you're the bank robber.*
|
|
#6
12-19-2005, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
In order.
It has never been right or just to murder. It has also never been wrong or unjust to murder. The creation of governments (laws) and religion (morals) are what created the concepts of right and justice. I am willing to be flexible about this, since there are people with religious convictions and there are many different theories of government. Not everybody can agree with this, and that is okay. It is what I think. You may be right, not all anarchists desire chaos. On the other hand, chaos is the inevitable result of anarchy. It seems to me that the anarchist's idealism clouds his vision on what would happen were there no real consequences in the form of laws. Let me put it this way. Might does not make right, since there is not really any such thing as RIGHT. The only right is what is in our own best-interests, so what is right for me may be criminal for you. And for the last two. Governments make such institutions as banks and military possible. The reason that we do not kill each other and rob banks is because we fear the punishment that would be bestowed upon us by the government. We fear the government because it is the most powerful entity we can immediately observe. The government, since it has the power to do so, makes various rules, and if we do not obey them, then we are punished. This goes for all types of governemnts, including Democracies, where we willingly give the government the power to do this. On the other hand, if there is no governemnt, and we had the responsibility ourselves, then there would not longer be a strongest entity. What that would lead to is internal wars among the citizens, until one person or group is the most powerful, and he/they would then be the government. With no government, there is constant fear of being killed, and constant battle with everybody else. Governemnts are created by the people, which means at one point, there was a state of anarchy. If anarchy is such a good thing, then why would the people have created governemnts in the first place? It is because they saw the need for a central authorityo to protect them from being slaughtered. Bank robbery is not a good thing, not because it is "wrong" to rob banks, but because we will be thrown in prison or killed by the people that make the banks possible. Therefore, robbing banks is -EV.
|
|
#7
12-19-2005, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
chaos is the inevitable result of anarchy. [/ QUOTE ] The largest, most destructive instances of chaos I can think of were all results of government action. [ QUOTE ] It seems to me that the anarchist's idealism clouds his vision on what would happen were there no real consequences in the form of laws. [/ QUOTE ] Where do you get the idea that anarchy means the lack of consequences or order? [ QUOTE ] Governments make such institutions as banks and military possible. The reason that we do not kill each other and rob banks is because we fear the punishment that would be bestowed upon us by the government. [/ QUOTE ] People make banks possible. The fact that governments have given themselves monopolies on enforcement does not in any way prove that they are the only method that such enforcement could be provided. [ QUOTE ] We fear the government because it is the most powerful entity we can immediately observe. The government, since it has the power to do so, makes various rules, and if we do not obey them, then we are punished. [/ QUOTE ] Wow. This is your argument *for* statism? Sounds wonderful. [ QUOTE ] This goes for all types of governemnts, including Democracies, where we willingly give the government the power to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Who's "we"? [ QUOTE ] On the other hand, if there is no governemnt, and we had the responsibility ourselves, then there would not longer be a strongest entity. What that would lead to is internal wars among the citizens, until one person or group is the most powerful, and he/they would then be the government. [/ QUOTE ] This assumes every man would fight for ultimate domination or nothing. No cooperation is possible without government? Come on. [ QUOTE ] With no government, there is constant fear of being killed, and constant battle with everybody else. [/ QUOTE ] Nobody gets killed when there's government? I don't know how many wars have been started by individuals, but I'm pretty sure the number is extremely small. [ QUOTE ] Governemnts are created by the people, which means at one point, there was a state of anarchy. If anarchy is such a good thing, then why would the people have created governemnts in the first place? It is because they saw the need for a central authorityo to protect them from being slaughtered. [/ QUOTE ] *Some* people did. [ QUOTE ] Bank robbery is not a good thing, not because it is "wrong" to rob banks, but because we will be thrown in prison or killed by the people that make the banks possible. Therefore, robbing banks is -EV. [/ QUOTE ] Wow. The status quo is always correct by virtue of the fact that it is the status quo. This is really amazing stuff.
|
|
#8
12-19-2005, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people. [/ QUOTE ] There's much more to it than just being "tired" of being ruled by another group of people. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had little to no representation. Before the Civil War the South DID have representation. [ QUOTE ] How do you justify killing over a half million men to "preserve the union"? [/ QUOTE ] It was better for the U.S.'s future. It won't make sense to you because you don't accept the premise that some government is okay, so further argument is pointless.
|
|
#9
12-19-2005, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people. [/ QUOTE ] There's much more to it than just being "tired" of being ruled by another group of people. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had little to no representation. Before the Civil War the South DID have representation. [/ QUOTE ] So what? Representation binds them absolutely? [ QUOTE ] When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [/ QUOTE ] How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group?
|
|
#10
12-19-2005, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41
[ QUOTE ]
So what? Representation binds them absolutely? [/ QUOTE ] Not absolutely. 50.1% of the country can't make slaves of the other 49.9%, even if made law. [ QUOTE ] How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group? [/ QUOTE ] Can we be sure that all those in the South wanted such seperation?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
