NationStates Jolt Archive

Was the american reolution justified? I am really tired so I will just bluntly put down a few points.

Yes it was Justified:
Taxation was imposed by parliament where there was no representation of the 13 colonies.
Continental congresses were disbanded by Great Britain, after years of self-governance.
Large quantities of British troops were quartered with private citizens even in peacetime.
British troops have fired on american colonists.(Boston Massacre)


No it was not justified:
Britain spent a huge amount of money protecting America from the french and their indian allies, it is only fair that the money spent protecting america shall be repaid by america.
The taxes themselves were extremely minor, some as low as 3 pennies(tea act)
The colonists committed a willful act of sabotage(Boston Tea Party) even after most taxes were repealed and troops were removed.
The colonists, they are british citizens and therefore subject to the authority of Parliament and the King.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know this far too brief and far too simplified, if you wish to add something please do so.

So what do you think? Was the American Rvolution a justified act of resistance to a tyrant? Or an irrational act of Treason?

Yes. Self-determination is a human right.

Yes. Self-determination is a human right.

So was the Civil War justified?

British troops have fired on american citizens(Boston Massacre)

You mean British troops fired on British subjects? :p

Yeah, probably.

So was the Civil War justified?

Had slavery not existed, it would have been.

So was the Civil War justified?

If you win, sure.

So was the Civil War justified?
Absolutely. It was, after all, the War for Southern Independence.

Had slavery not existed, it would have been.

Doesn't that unjustify the American Revolution?

So was the Civil War justified?

Do you mean was secession justified, or was the United States fighting to keep its territory justified?
There are several differences from the American Civil and Revolutionary War. Most importantly, the states that seceded from the Union were part of the country. They had representation, and all the same rights as the states that didn't secede. The revolutionaries were, on the other hand, living in colonies. The point of colonies to to provide raw goods for the mother country, and as a result, the colonists had no representation and many rights given to British subjects (such as habeas corpus) which should have been given to the colonists weren't. It's true to say that Britain protected the colonists, but that was only to protect the raw goods Britain was getting from its colonies. So I would say, yes, the revolution was justified because after attempted diplomacy, the rights and representation the colonists asked for was still not given. The American Civil War was not fought just for slavery, so I don't think that can be used as support for the Union fighting with the Confederates, but it was essentially fought because the two factions were so different culturally and demographically. In terms of rights, the Southerners were not worse off than the Northerners (although to be fair, the North often pushed for economic policies better for itself and not the entire country).

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

There is my justification, Mr. Jefferson laid it all out.

Britain also disbanded the legislature of colonies and had the right to do so at will. The American people had no right to represent themselves in the eyes of King George III, and this went against all logic and reason. The British were not at all accomodating to American interests, so the colonists were driven to revolt.

Britain also disbanded the legislature of colonies and had the right to do so at will. The American people had no right to represent themselves in the eyes of King George III, and this went against all logic and reason. The British were not at all accomodating to American interests, so the colonists were driven to revolt.

I already put this down, also the colonists were British subjects the british parliament represented them as citizens of the empire.

Britain let the Colonies fend for themselves when they seemed to have no real value. The colonies learned to be self sufficient and how to self govern. When they suddenly became lucrative, this is when Britain tightened their grip on them. After centuries of British neglect and self suffieciency, it is no wonder the founding fathers felt they owed Britain nothing.

I already put this down

You used the term "continental congresses." I was referring to legislatures established by Great Britain for limited self-government within the states -- there were only two continental congresses, which were not disbanded by Great Britain. The first wrote articles protesting British actions, and the second declared independence and governed the colonies from 1775 to 1781.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

There is my justification, Mr. Jefferson laid it all out.

Lincoln loved the Declaration as much as any of the documents of the Revolution, perhaps more than any other. And yet he fought against the secession attempt with all his might. It must have been a very difficult time. I said above that the Revolution was justified - that revolution is justified if you win, partly facetiously, but seriously, too. Had the Confederacy managed to win independence then there would be scholarly justifications for the break-up of the Old Union, I'm sure. They lost, however, and so they are remembered as rebels. Glorious, romantic rebels, Armistead at Gettysburg with his hat on his sword and never mind the slaves in the fields and the chains and the whips and the families broken up and sold down the river. We were one of the last Western nations to abolish slavery, you know, and we had to kill 500,000 of our countrymen to do it. Even Czarist Russia abolished serfdom before we did slavery. Why was that?

Anyway, yes, the Revolution of 1776 was certainly justified and perhaps the Confederates had justification, too. But the Heroes of 76, no taxation without representation! won and the Stars and Bars went down in a fight over the right to own other men. Which was the better cause, I wonder?

Yes. Self-determination is a human right.
I agree.

Lincoln loved the Declaration as much as any of the documents of the Revolution, perhaps more than any other. And yet he fought against the secession attempt with all his might. It must have been a very difficult time. I said above that the Revolution was justified - that revolution is justified if you win, partly facetiously, but seriously, too. Had the Confederacy managed to win independence then there would be scholarly justifications for the break-up of the Old Union, I'm sure. They lost, however, and so they are remembered as rebels. Glorious, romantic rebels, Armistead at Gettysburg with his hat on his sword and never mind the slaves in the fields and the chains and the whips and the families broken up and sold down the river. We were one of the last Western nations to abolish slavery, you know, and we had to kill 500,000 of our countrymen to do it. Even Czarist Russia abolished serfdom before we did slavery. Why was that?


Isn't it obvious?

In an autocratic system, change is easy, change is rapid, but in a democratic society, change is slow. Even if the US was not perfectly democratic, debate and vested interests slowed the hand of the government.

Yes. Self-determination is a human right.
My position too.

Of course it was justified. Why? 'Cause the U.S.A. came into existence. History has a strange way of justifying the ultimate victors. Of course, it could be that history is written by the victors...

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal.

-- 1776, (1972)

No, it wasn't.

They could have waited to gain sovierignty and independence through peaceful means like nearly every other British Commonwealth nation.

Was the american reolution justified? I am really tired so I will just bluntly put down a few points.

Yes it was Justified:
Taxation was imposed by parliament where there was no representation of the 13 colonies.
Continental congresses were disbanded by Great Britain, after years of self-governance.
Large quantities of British troops were quartered with private citizens even in peacetime.
British troops have fired on american colonists.(Boston Massacre)


No it was not justified:
Britain spent a huge amount of money protecting America from the french and their indian allies, it is only fair that the money spent protecting america shall be repaid by america.
The taxes themselves were extremely minor, some as low as 3 pennies(tea act)
The colonists committed a willful act of sabotage(Boston Tea Party) even after most taxes were repealed and troops were removed.
The colonists, they are british citizens and therefore subject to the authority of Parliament and the King.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know this far too brief and far too simplified, if you wish to add something please do so.

So what do you think? Was the American Rvolution a justified act of resistance to a tyrant? Or an irrational act of Treason?

A justified act of revolution. If they had allowed us to obtain seats in Parliament, then it would've easily been an act of treason, but since we were virtually represented, we were unable to choose for ourselves how high the taxes were, or even have a say in it at all. Oh, and some interesting trivia, after the Articles were ratified and the war was over, the new government imposed most of the same taxes the British had placed upon us to pay for war debts

Okay, to dispel some myths about the Quartering Act, Red Coats would not go and invade innocent civilian homes and rape their owners. What it actually called for was that any building not in use, may be used as a temporary barracks for British soldiers. I'm not saying that wasn't infringing upon our rights as British citizens but it wasn't as bad as most people think.

The soldiers in the Boston Massacre were tried in American courts and defended by Adams. I believe one was put to death and the other two were sent back to England. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

Oh, right, why it was justified... we won!

Yeah it was justified (coming from a Brit). I mean, don't me wrong, I'm not one of those "omg teh british were teh ebil" ranters, but I suppose you have to give these colonies their independance one way or another. It was more or less inevitable that we'd be unable to keep such a large landmass with such huge potential under our rule indefinitely. I'd have preferred it to have been more peaceful though, similar to the transition of power in India and many other territories. Of course that happened after WW2, different attitudes and different circumstances.

No, it wasn't.

They could have waited to gain sovierignty and independence through peaceful means like nearly every other British Commonwealth nation.

Why should we have? We were months away from British Rule, and were treated as second class citizens. We did not have a voice in deciding how high the taxes would be. We had many resources here that were being taken to England and not left to the colonies to improve themselves, and were being asked to pay exhorbitant taxes on comforting things from home like tea.

Why, when you're treated like a troublesome outsider in your own home, WOULDN'T you say, "Um, hey, you sent us here, now play fair or we're taking our ball and bat and you can play elsewhere?"

Tell you what... Why don't I come over and tell you how to live inside your house and see how quickly that gets old?

You're also conveniently forgetting: peaceful means were tried, and were met with punitive taxes and troops being sent over, jailings and hangings. A pretty stupid way to try to reconcile with a colony made up almost entirely of your own subjects.

No, it wasn't.

They could have waited to gain sovierignty and independence through peaceful means like nearly every other British Commonwealth nation.

Or maybe the reason the others were able to break away peacefully was because the Crown didn't want another armed rebellion on its' hands? Though I am not sure I'd call Indian independence all that peaceful despite Ghandis' efforts.

EDIT: Damn Kat, you beat me to it!

In one respect, yes. It was justified, and the Colonists had good reason to want to revolt.

However, you could quite easily say that they were traitors too, because they did revolt against their king, even if they did renounce their allegiance to him (As I would have done too).


Had they not won the war, we would refer to them as evil, terrorists and rebels, not as the heroes we know them as today.

My great great great (however many greats) Grandfather fought in the Revolution in the Continental Army, and then later at the Battle of Baltimore in the war of 1812.

Why should we have? We were months away from British Rule, and were treated as second class citizens. We did not have a voice in deciding how high the taxes would be. We had many resources here that were being taken to England and not left to the colonies to improve themselves, and were being asked to pay exhorbitant taxes on comforting things from home like tea.

Why, when you're treated like a troublesome outsider in your own home, WOULDN'T you say, "Um, hey, you sent us here, now play fair or we're taking our ball and bat and you can play elsewhere?"

Tell you what... Why don't I come over and tell you how to live inside your house and see how quickly that gets old?

You're also conveniently forgetting: peaceful means were tried, and were met with punitive taxes and troops being sent over, jailings and hangings. A pretty stupid way to try to reconcile with a colony made up almost entirely of your own subjects.

Yes, thank you. That is what I tried and failed to say. My train of thought derailed a bit.

My great great great (however many greats) Grandfather fought in the Revolution in the Continental Army, and then later at the Battle of Baltimore in the war of 1812.

Have you yet visited Ft. McHenry? If not, go -- wonderful.

However, you could quite easily say that they were traitors too, because they did revolt against their king, even if they did renounce their allegiance to him (As I would have done too).


Had they not won the war, we would refer to them as evil, terrorists and rebels, not as the heroes we know them as today.

My great great great (however many greats) Grandfather fought in the Revolution in the Continental Army, and then later at the Battle of Baltimore in the war of 1812.

True, I think that Franklin said pretty much the same thing, didn't he?

I always find it difficult but entertaining to judge the ethics of history, especially in an event which seems to have little consequence on modern diplomacy.

It depends which sense of "right" you mean. If you mean "right" that is dependent upon government, the no. If you mean right as in meeting our needs, then yes. As Soheran put it. Self-determination. We wanted it and took it. Through victory, history justified us.

...and were being asked to pay exhorbitant taxes on comforting things from home like tea...a colony made up almost entirely of your own subjects.

Tea never quite recovered from being used as a weapon by England. :)

True, I think that Franklin said pretty much the same thing, didn't he?

I believe he did.


@ Katganistan:

I have never been there, but I would really like to. :)

It was. Otherwise we wouldn't have Motor City and all the great things to come out of it...

It was. Otherwise we wouldn't have Motor City and all the great things to come out of it...

:p Good point!

:p Good point!
http://monacofamily.smugmug.com/photos/34069424-S.jpg
http://www.estonia.ca/koit/nissan/1970-Plymouth_Cuda.jpg
The one above sold for... 700 grand, I think, at Barret-Jackson this year.

I believe he did.


@ Katganistan:

I have never been there, but I would really like to. :)

Charm City (Baltimore) is lovely. You wouldn't be disappointed to visit Ft. McHenry, the National Aquarium (in the Inner Harbor) or take the Ducks tour through the historic district.

:) I've been there many times.

I wonder what might've happened had Franklin's Albany Plan been implented? Franklin believed that the revolution would've been avoided, though it can just as easily be said that it would've only delayed the war.

Absolutely. It was, after all, the War for Southern Independence.

No, no, clearly it was the "War of northern aggression" :p

So was the Civil War justified?

No because they took away others right to self determination through slavery.

No because they took away others right to self determination through slavery.
That means nothing, though. Your statement is a flagrant irrelevant conclusion.

That means nothing, though. Your statement is a flagrant irrelevant conclusion.

Explain how.

It was justified. The colonists wanted to be treated like British citizens, as in having all the rights a group of British citizens would enjoy. All went well between the American colonies and Britian until King George III took power. All of a sudden, Brittian had an asshole as king and the relationship between the colonies and GB went from okay to bad. Add in years of failed peaceful negotiations and you realize that they were lucky it wasn't nearly as bloody as the French Revolution. Sure, bullets were fired...alot and lives were lost...alot, but there weren't any mass beheadings and riots on the scale of the FR.

I've always wondered why France gets so much credit for starting the "independence trend" when the Americans pulled it off first...and alot more successfully. Oh well, the AR gets "the shot heard around the world" and leads to one of the shortest and simplest constitutions ever written.(thank god).

Explain how.
Explain how the fact that slavery existed in those states means that those states shouldn't have been allowed to remove themselves from the contract which describes the basic setup of the US federal government is a non sequitur/irrelevant conclusion? Isn't it blindingly obvious? What does one have to do with the other? Answer: nothing at all. Not one thing, period. The state governances exercised the right of secession, promulgated by Locke, Jefferson, et al. That those states also had slavery did not in any way detract from that.

Doesn't that unjustify the American Revolution?

no, because the revolution wasn't fought for slavery.

Anyway, yes, the Revolution of 1776 was certainly justified and perhaps the Confederates had justification, too. But the Heroes of 76, no taxation without representation! won and the Stars and Bars went down in a fight over the right to own other men. Which was the better cause, I wonder?
Actually, the War for Southern Independence was only a "war about slavery" after the politically-expedient Emancipation Proclamation was issued, designed to keep the UK and France out of the war on the side of the Confederacy.

indeed, the civil war wasnt the first attempt by a souther state to seceed, south carolina seceeded during the jackson administration over tariffs

The American Revolution is the single most justified war in human history.

There is way more to this than just taxes, if that were the cases Americans would've revolted agaisnt themselves years ago.
Theres the obvious no-representation.
Then theres the Kings very aggresive tax policy towards the Americans and his idea that Americans should pay for Englands war with France.
Then theres the fact that England made it illegal for the colonies to trade with any other nations other than England.
The fact that Americans had grown Indepedant of England LONG before the revolution.
The ideas of freedom and equality far outwiegh the totalitarianism of a King, An English Revolt against the crown in England itself is even justified here. That alone is worth sheeding blood.

No, it wasn't.

They could have waited to gain sovierignty and independence through peaceful means like nearly every other British Commonwealth nation.

That never would've happened like it did if the revolution did not occur. And why? why should we subjegate ourselves before the crown in an opressive situation? why should we have to be peaceful? If your going to brutally opress someone they have every damn right in the world to fight and to kill to free themselves. Gahndi was wrong. Think about all the Indians that died as a direct result of the racist rule of the british for the 30years it took for them to peacefully suceed, when it would've taken only a year at most for them to force them out violently. Violence can save lives in a situation like this. And it sends a clear message to the pompus aristocracy, that people dont take your foolish, blood divine right bullshit.

lets face it, while the revolution was directed at the crown in terms of its speaches, it was really a revolution against parliament.

So was the Civil War justified?

Yes. And so was the French Revolution. And the Russian Revolution of 1917. Similarly the Mexican revolution (that overthrew Spanish rule). Virtually every war of independence is arguably "justified." So is, technically, every war in general; is it moral, not always, ethical, rarely, but justified? Absolutely.

To the OP: Yes, the American Revolution was simultaneously an act of treason against the British Crown and a legitimate opposition to an oppressive tyranny. The colonies acheived their independence, ergo, it was justified. Everything is justified through will and force.

indeed, the civil war wasnt the first attempt by a souther state to seceed, south carolina seceeded during the jackson administration over tariffs

and it was slightly more justified that time. though not nearly as much as the grumblings of it in response to the alien and sedition acts.

Anything can be justified from the right point of view.

Keeping that in mind:
Did they think that the average man on the streets of London had representation in parliament? Ha. If they were so unhappy under the British, maybe they shouldn’t have saved the American’s asses in the Seven Years War? Maybe seen how they would have liked it under the French?

The truth is, the American Revolution was little more than an assortment of greedy old merchants getting together and deciding that they didn’t want to pay back the money that they owed to a mostly benevolent and effective State. They were able to convince some great minds like Franklin and Paine to go along with their revolution, telling them that a system that planned to uphold the institution of slavery could somehow accommodate Liberty.

Even Washington, the so called “Father of Our Country,” was little more than a British soldier upset that he couldn’t get an officer ranking.

Everything is justified through will and force.
Anything can be, yes.

Doesn't that unjustify the American Revolution?

No, because slavery was incidental to it.

The Declaration of Independence explained it quite well. Whenever government ceases to serve the citizenry, it is time to replace it. No human being has the hereditary right to have power over another, and to that extent any revolution for the purpose of overthrowing/winning independence from a monarchy is justifiable.

again, they werent really rebelling from the crown, but parliament

YEA, but it wasn't resistance against a tyranny - I wouldn't say the British Empire had a very oppressive attitude towards the american colonies.
It was the will of the people of the colonies to become independent, perfectly normal right of a population to have a government appointed by themselves.

Added:
It was a British victory: british colonists fighting for british moral values against german soldiers sent by a german king... ;)

again, they werent really rebelling from the crown, but parliament
Both. It was a constitional monarchy (still is, I think), and both King and Parliament had power (and were consequently responsible for the mess that arose in the colonies).

Anything can be justified from the right point of view.

Keeping that in mind:
Did they think that the average man on the streets of London had representation in parliament? Ha. If they were so unhappy under the British, maybe they shouldn’t have saved the American’s asses in the Seven Years War? Maybe seen how they would have liked it under the French?

The truth is, the American Revolution was little more than an assortment of greedy old merchants getting together and deciding that they didn’t want to pay back the money that they owed to a mostly benevolent and effective State. They were able to convince some great minds like Franklin and Paine to go along with their revolution, telling them that a system that planned to uphold the institution of slavery could somehow accommodate Liberty.

Even Washington, the so called “Father of Our Country,” was little more than a British soldier upset that he couldn’t get an officer ranking.


Well, Britain shouldn't have been so greedy as to place a few tiny, measly, taxes on the Colonies, really, and should have left them with home rule. Under home rule, the Colonies flourished and prospered, bringing a good deal of wealth to Britain. All the taxes did was aggravate the merchants and other big players of the revolution, which led to squabbles with the Brits, which in turn led to the Brits laying even more oppressive laws upon the colonies, pissing them off more.

It really would have been far more profitable for the Brits to just leave the colonies alone, have home rule, and bring in the major cash for England(which the taxes wouldn't have even made a dent on in the first place).

But oh well.

YEA, but it wasn't resistance against a tyranny - I wouldn't say the British Empire had a very oppressive attitude towards the american colonies.
It was the will of the people of the colonies to become independent, perfectly normal right of a population to have a government appointed by themselves.

Added:
It was a British victory: british colonists fighting for british moral values against german soldiers sent by a german king... ;)

Actually, in the beginning stages of the war, it wasn't really about "independance" just so much as the colonies wanting home rule back in effect. They didn't really see the point in having all the laws and taxes layed upon them when they were bringing in so much wealth to England.

Had the English offered home rule to the colonies, possibly before the French allied with the colonists, the war may have ended early, without any independance won whatsoever. However, they offered it up far to late(When the French joined the colonies, thus pretty making a British Victory almost impossible), and the Colonists went for all-or-nothing at that point.

Actually, in the beginning stages of the war, it wasn't really about "independance" just so much as the colonies wanting home rule back in effect. They didn't really see the point in having all the laws and taxes layed upon them when they were bringing in so much wealth to England.


Yes. As with most wars, economy and wealth are the prime issues.
And I think that in the 1812 the British hoped that the former colonies would join the empire again.

the magna carta set up the basic rights that extended to people living under english rule. it helped to set up the basic rights. the colonists werent given those rights and protested. when they still were treated misfairly then they retaliated. so yeah i think it was justified

One of the points missed is that prior to the 7 yrs war with France, largely fought in North America over control of the area, the tax rates paid by the 13 colonies was actually lower than the tax rates paid in London.


Another thing is the amount of stories told during the revolution where actually myths.

And if it had'nt been for the french forces coming north and supporting the US forces at Yorktown and their naval forces blockading the port, the siege would still be going on today.

El-Supremo Boris

<<<wont mention that BOTH sides promised freedom to any slave that fought for them........... bet the ones that fought for the US were glad they won.

The truth is, the American Revolution was little more than an assortment of greedy old merchants getting together and deciding that they didn’t want to pay back the money that they owed to a mostly benevolent and effective State. They were able to convince some great minds like Franklin and Paine to go along with their revolution, telling them that a system that planned to uphold the institution of slavery could somehow accommodate Liberty.
There's far more to it than that. How about the mercantilist bullshit whereby direct trade with many countries was forbidden? All items first had to go to Britain, and had to be stored there for a while before being sent on to other countries.

Britain was using the colonies. Those living in the colonies got sick of it.

Yes. Self-determination is a human right.

No, it isnt

Self determination taken to its logical conclusion is anarchy. You have to be more selective.

I think that, in the context of the 18th Century, the Americans got pretty pissy about relatively minor things.

Having said that, I don't think it matters that much. What's done is done.

There's far more to it than that. How about the mercantilist bullshit whereby direct trade with many countries was forbidden? All items first had to go to Britain, and had to be stored there for a while before being sent on to other countries.

Britain was using the colonies. Those living in the colonies got sick of it.
Britain had certain faults, yes, but not enough to justify for the colonists to claim any sort of moral superiority.

Self determination taken to its logical conclusion is anarchy.

yeah, and?

yes because my American History teacher said so!!!!

Britain had certain faults, yes, but not enough to justify for the colonists to claim any sort of moral superiority.
Ever read the grievances in the DoI? There certainly was enough economic and moral reason to do so.

Ever read the grievances in the DoI?

Of course I have. Most of it was exaggerated propaganda.

No, it was not (I am an American). Not only for just the reasons you specified, but the colonists went there by choice (unless you were fleeing religious prosecution, but that was still "by choice". No one was "making you" leave), the British were protecting their colonists, and they apparently repaid them by starting a war. Even the Boston Massacre wasn't a massacre. The British didn't line up like in Paul Revere's painting and shoot, the colonists were antagonising and insulting the soldiers, and in the chaos, somebody may or may not have said "fire" or something similar. (Yes, I know most of you probably already knew this) The other colonies were being taxed without representation, none of them complained at all. Not to say I hate America, I'm loyal to it, just the war wasn't justified.

No, it was not (I am an American). Not only for just the reasons you specified, but the colonists went there by choice (unless you were fleeing religious prosecution, but that was still "by choice". No one was "making you" leave), the British were protecting their colonists, and they apparently repaid them by starting a war.

Actually, most of the colonists in the Americas at the time of the Revolution were born and raised in the Americas. Hell, even most of the Tories during the revolution had never even stepped foot onto Britain. They didn't really choose to be there, they were born there.

Also, the situation gets a bit trickier. You see, according to the colony charters, signed by the King, each colony was to be set up to have it's own governance. However, parliament had the right to rule over all British lands. So, we have a sticky problem as the all the colonists really wanted was home rule(which in turn would be profitable to England), and all Parliament wanted was money from America(which the taxes they levied barely raised anything.

Reall, there are many good points for and against the revolution. It was both justified and unjustified at the same time.

I suppose you've got a point there.

Of course I have. Most of it was exaggerated propaganda.
No, it was all true.

To answer the original post, was the American revolution justisfied, I would point to the principles of self-determination to answer it. I do, however, see a great contradiction between the Revolution and the Civil War, where the South wished to be free of the Union's notions of morality and way-of-life. For such a transformational document as the Declaration of Independence, its blatant contradictions towards slaves (and later the South) goes a way to sour its grandeur, in my opinion.

As has been demonstrated through our support for the corrupt regime of the Shah of Iran, against his people's wishes, aspects of 'self-determination' seem to be championed by the U.S. only when it suits our own interests.

Forceful retention of break-away territories leads only to great animosity between the two parties once hostilities have ceased. The scars of the Civil War are still seen and felt in the South, and archaic practices of blatant descrimination were practiced there less than 40 years ago. If the South has peacefully succeeded, it is doubtless that trade would have developed between the two nations. True, feelings on both sides will have been hurt, but that seems a satisfactory comparision to 600,000 dead.

//dave

-snip-
*menacing glare*

True, feelings on both sides will have been hurt

The retention of slavery encompasses far more than mere hurt feelings.

yeah, and?

And thus you cannot claim it as a human right unto itself. It needs qualification

Had there been created something akin to a kind of Imperial parliament (with seats that represented the colonies) then things would be very interesting.

To answer the original post, was the American revolution justisfied, I would point to the principles of self-determination to answer it.

Self determination by its nature requires qualification. Taken to its logical extreme, self determination prodices anarchy.

And thus you cannot claim it as a human right unto itself.

sure you can. watch me.

sure you can. watch me.

As someone once said

You have a right to be wrong, and I am in no way challenging that right. I am merely questioning the wisdom in remaining so.

So unless you can argue that self determination is a human right that can be unqualified and not lead to anarchy, you are wrong.

So unless you can argue that self determination is a human right that can be unqualified and not lead to anarchy, you are wrong.

you have not demonstrated any wrongness. self determination does lead (partially) to anarchism. excellent.

you have not demonstrated any wrongness. self determination does lead (partially) to anarchism. excellent.

Anarchism is bad. It is chaos, and thus leads to no organisation and extreme danger as there is no way for people to be protected by those who would seek to harm them. So to claim that self deterimation is a human right must then lead you to claim that all governments are evil. Thus the American revolution was unjustified since it leads to one government being replaced by another.

By today's standards the American revolution would be justified, but by the standards of the time, no, not really.

No, it was all true.

No it was completely exaggerated. For example:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

In fact, they numbered about 50 and were there to stop illegal smuggling - quite justified even from a colonists' POV. (Bill Bryson, Made in America)

By today's standards the American revolution would be justified, but by the standards of the time, no, not really.
Why not? Shouldn't the right to self-determination apply at all times? Of course, what makes me laugh, is that first you secede from Britain, then you won't let the South secede.

Anarchism is bad. It is chaos, and thus leads to no organisation and extreme danger as there is no way for people to be protected by those who would seek to harm them. So to claim that self deterimation is a human right must then lead you to claim that all governments are evil. Thus the American revolution was unjustified since it leads to one government being replaced by another.

Anarchy isn't necessarily "chaos", and anyway "chaos" is quite a different thing from "evil".
You suppose there would always be people seeking to harm others. This is not necessary, only incidental.
Why should you claim all governments are evil if you want to claim self-determination as a right? If all the people living in a country want to alienate some of their freedom to a government freely elected by the people, well, of course that government wouldn't be "evil".

Anarchism is bad. It is chaos,
No. Anarchy = anarchy. Chaos = chaos. Two different things. Not having a government is not the same as chaos, given that there have been periods of chaos where there are governments. Thus, anarchy != chaos.


and thus leads to no organisation and extreme danger as there is no way for people to be protected by those who would seek to harm them.
You've clearly bought into the statist myths.


So to claim that self deterimation is a human right must then lead you to claim that all governments are evil. Thus the American revolution was unjustified since it leads to one government being replaced by another.
Non sequitur. Just because it was replaced by another doesn't mean it wasn't justified.

No it was completely exaggerated. For example:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

In fact, they numbered about 50 and were there to stop illegal smuggling - quite justified even from a colonists' POV. (Bill Bryson, Made in America)
Aren't you forgetting about the tax collectors?

Anarchism is bad. It is chaos, and thus leads to no organisation and extreme danger as there is no way for people to be protected by those who would seek to harm them.

this is false about both anarchism and self determination. sticking with the on topic portion, what sort of argument could one make that goes from the premise "people have a right to choose how they govern themselves" to get to the conclusion "therefore it is logically necessary that they will choose to have no organization whatsoever, not even for self defense"?

So to claim that self deterimation is a human right must then lead you to claim that all governments are evil. Thus the American revolution was unjustified since it leads to one government being replaced by another.

nah, self determination can get you all sorts of governments. and while it is the case that the state is 'evil' (for a seperate set of reasons), that would have no direct bearing on the justness of a revolution itself.

Why not? Shouldn't the right to self-determination apply at all times? Of course, what makes me laugh, is that first you secede from Britain, then you won't let the South secede.

Don't forget the histrionics because China dares to embrace a similar policy towards it's 'rogue states'.

this is false about both anarchism and self determination. sticking with the on topic portion, what sort of argument could one make that goes from the premise "people have a right to choose how they govern themselves" to get to the conclusion "therefore it is logically necessary that they will choose to have no organization whatsoever, not even for self defense"?

People having a right to choose how to govern themselves is not self determination. That is democracy IE "We wish to choose how we are governed & who we are governed by". Self determination refers to the level at which the group itself is making that choice "We as a group wish to run ourselves and not be intefered with by X group". However taken to its extreme, it leads to the individaul, IE "I as an individual wish to make my own choices about how I run my affairs, and not be infuenced or dominated by any one else". That is the logical extreme of self determination.

People having a right to choose how to govern themselves is not self determination. That is democracy IE "We wish to choose how we are governed & who we are governed by". Self determination refers to the level at which the group itself is making that choice "We as a group wish to run ourselves and not be intefered with by X group". However taken to its extreme, it leads to the individaul, IE "I as an individual wish to make my own choices about how I run my affairs, and not be infuenced or dominated by any one else". That is the logical extreme of self determination.
Yes, so what?

Was the american reolution justified? I am really tired so I will just bluntly put down a few points.

Yes it was Justified:
Taxation was imposed by parliament where there was no representation of the 13 colonies.
Continental congresses were disbanded by Great Britain, after years of self-governance.
Large quantities of British troops were quartered with private citizens even in peacetime.
British troops have fired on american colonists.(Boston Massacre)


No it was not justified:
Britain spent a huge amount of money protecting America from the french and their indian allies, it is only fair that the money spent protecting america shall be repaid by america.
The taxes themselves were extremely minor, some as low as 3 pennies(tea act)
The colonists committed a willful act of sabotage(Boston Tea Party) even after most taxes were repealed and troops were removed.
The colonists, they are british citizens and therefore subject to the authority of Parliament and the King.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know this far too brief and far too simplified, if you wish to add something please do so.

So what do you think? Was the American Rvolution a justified act of resistance to a tyrant? Or an irrational act of Treason?'


The American Revolution was justified simply because the people who had the power to do it managed to pull it off, and the result was positive.

Period.

It was also treason. No doubt.

It might be considered to have been "irrational", because it was "CRAZY" of them to think they could do it,.. yet they did.

Only in retrospect can actions be judged as "justified" or not.

And the only way to qualify the positiveness or negativeness of a justification is in the mind of the individual.

But whether it was "justified" or not means nothing in relation to the fact that it happened, and the results of it having happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Europa Maxima
Why not? Shouldn't the right to self-determination apply at all times? Of course, what makes me laugh, is that first you secede from Britain, then you won't let the South secede.

Don't forget the histrionics because China dares to embrace a similar policy towards it's 'rogue states'.

Everyone "does" histrionics.

Remember the (partial) definition of "histrionics",.. "ACTING"..!!?

People (and nations) don't, and shouldn't, bend to the histrionics of others. They must have reasons for doing things, and self interest is the prime reason, always.



China can try to do what it likes, and for me (or the US) to say that they shouldn't "on moral grounds" has only the weight that I can muster in others to apply to China to "change them".

We "seceded" from Britain because we thought it would be a good idea and thought (insanely) that it was possible.

We refused to allow the south to "seceed" because we thought it would be a bad idea and fought them to implement our will.

The joke is always on those who think that individual incidents in history are "morally linked" to other incidents, such that one outcome should show how all future "similar" incidents should resolve.

You laugh at what you see as hypocracy, when you are the one who is laughed at for being so naive as to not see the true machinations of the workings of history.

We "seceded" from Britain because we thought it would be a good idea and thought (insanely) that it was possible.
Correct.

We refused to allow the south to "seceed" because we thought it would be a bad idea and fought them to implement our will.
Correct.

The joke is always on those who think that individual incidents in history are "morally linked" to other incidents, such that one outcome should show how all future "similar" incidents should resolve.
Utterly incorrect. Coherence is important, like it or not. The case of the South seceding from the US is analogous to that of the US seceding from Britain - do you really think Britain thought it was a "good" idea to let you secede? Get real. Those in favour of the secession will always think it's a good idea - those who stand to lose won't.

You laugh at what you see as hypocracy, when you are the one who is laughed at for being so naive as to not see the true machinations of the workings of history.
Being laughed at for coherence is a price I'm willing to pay. And it is spelt hypocrisy.

By the way, take a look at how legal systems work - especially at the doctrine of stare decisis/ precedents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
We "seceded" from Britain because we thought it would be a good idea and thought (insanely) that it was possible.

Correct.

Quote:
We refused to allow the south to "seceed" because we thought it would be a bad idea and fought them to implement our will.

Correct.

Quote:
The joke is always on those who think that individual incidents in history are "morally linked" to other incidents, such that one outcome should show how all future "similar" incidents should resolve.

Utterly incorrect. Coherence is important, like it or not. The case of the South seceding from the US is analogous to that of the US seceding from Britain - do you really think Britain thought it was a "good" idea to let you secede? Get real. Those in favour of the secession will always think it's a good idea - those who stand to lose won't.

It was NOT a good idea from Britain's viewpoint to "let" America secede..! D'uh..! But how did the situation turn out? Why were these two situations (USvsBritain and USvsConfederacy) so similar that that should be treated as instances of a single "moral" situation?

In other words, why "should" they have had the same outcome?

Coherence and consistency is important in all realms OTHER THAN political reality.

Reality on the ground trumps the "SHOULDs" every time.


Quote:
You laugh at what you see as hypocracy, when you are the one who is laughed at for being so naive as to not see the true machinations of the workings of history.

Being laughed at for coherence is a price I'm willing to pay. And it is spelt hypocrisy.

Thanks for the correct spelling! I guess I keep thinking of that word as some sort of "governance principle" or something! Silly me..! :)

I also value coherence extremely highly. The problem is that that value is simply not much of a consideration in the area of politics qua politics.


By the way, take a look at how legal systems work - especially at the doctrine of stare decisis/ precedents.

I agree with you entirely.

The problem, once again, is that politics, especially international politics, is not a matter of, nor based on the principles of, LAW.

It is based on the principles of POWER, within the confines of that law which those in power ACCEPT as ruling their power.

The rule is, "You may keep that which you can hold, however you can hold it, but only for as long as you can hold it."


Power always trumps law, until those in power gain more power by the imposition of law.



Whether this is "right" or not is immaterial to reality.

the revolution and the civil war are morally linked because they are essentially the same. In both cases, a group believed it was under represented, and ruled from afar. In both cases, the entities responsible for revolution believed secession was the only way to achieve self determination. The only differance is that the secessionists won the American Revolution and lost the Civil War.

And over 3 centuries later, America is still under the yokes of a King George.

Go figure.

the revolution and the civil war are morally linked because they are essentially the same. In both cases, a group believed it was under represented, and ruled from afar. In both cases, the entities responsible for revolution believed secession was the only way to achieve self determination. The only differance is that the secessionists won the American Revolution and lost the Civil War.

So, in your opinion, should the outcomes have been the same?

And would that be a "better" set of outcomes, and why?

Absolutely. A federal republic is a collection of states acting together for mutual interest. The Federal Government is not supposed to have power over the states, nor should it dissalow withdrawal from that union. The plain fact of the matter is that the people of the secessionist states desired to no longer be part of the Union. THe legacy of the American Civil War is an overabundance of power in the federal government. Also as previously pointed out, wwe are more than happy to assist in any other revolutionary movement.

A better outcome would have been a two country system, with close ties. Like Canada and the US or the US and Britain.

It was NOT a good idea from Britain's viewpoint to "let" America secede..! D'uh..! But how did the situation turn out? Why were these two situations (USvsBritain and USvsConfederacy) so similar that that should be treated as instances of a single "moral" situation?

In other words, why "should" they have had the same outcome?

Coherence and consistency is important in all realms OTHER THAN political reality.

Reality on the ground trumps the "SHOULDs" every time.
Ideologically, both are justified. In terms of pragmatism the second failed due to the inability to overpower those who stood to lose.



Thanks for the correct spelling! I guess I keep thinking of that word as some sort of "governance principle" or something! Silly me..! :)

I also value coherence extremely highly. The problem is that that value is simply not much of a consideration in the area of politics qua politics.
Politics is detestable and needs reform. Ergo, all constructive criticism of states and their actions is valuable.


Power always trumps law, until those in power gain more power by the imposition of law.

Whether this is "right" or not is immaterial to reality.
Let us reduce power to its absolute base. The population, ie each individual, surrenders partially their rights to a delegate, on the proposition that they control this delegate acts on their behalf and in their favour. From here on the population will be called the Sovereign, the author of power. In democracies, the author is not only meant to entrust power in someone, it is meant to rule as well. Direct democracy is impossible. Ergo we entrust powers in a representative body. This representative body then manipulates the delusion that it is ruling on behalf of the people - it is an invisible tyrant. Any attempts to diminish its power (e.g. independent courts, ie Overseers) tend to fuse with the delegate. These "representatives" then act as they please. The truth is though, the power they use is not theirs. It is not even conferred - it is stolen, and can be taken back.

This is against the concept of "democracy" or any system with similar pretenses. Even in monarchies the delegate was subject to the same laws as the Sovereign. In democracies the delegate renders itself superior, and invisible. They are illegal agents. Without popular consent, they are nothing. To say one must work with the rules of "reality" is to say nothing - it is to acquiesce to a status quo that is bereft of any logic. I therefore oppose the interventionist state that meddles in the business of others, I oppose the State which rules by majority, I oppose the State which rules by representatives - to me the only legitimate State is the minimal State or anarchism, ie rule of the individual. The individual can reclaim the power they gave away, whether in groups for mutual benefit, or on their own.

Absolutely. A federal republic is a collection of states acting together for mutual interest. The Federal Government is not supposed to have power over the states, nor should it dissalow withdrawal from that union. The plain fact of the matter is that the people of the secessionist states desired to no longer be part of the Union. THe legacy of the American Civil War is an overabundance of power in the federal government. Also as previously pointed out, wwe are more than happy to assist in any other revolutionary movement.

A better outcome would have been a two country system, with close ties. Like Canada and the US or the US and Britain.

What?

So far the US has more assisted dictatorships in cracking down on revolutionary or democratization movements. Iran. Cuba. Iraq. What are you talking about?
And in what way is Britain and the US a "two country system" ?

No, it was all true.
"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."
Yeah, after the colonists attacked first.


"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."
Hyperbolic bullshit, just like the rest of it.

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."
Yeah, after the colonists attacked first.


"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."
Hyperbolic bullshit, just like the rest of it.

Well, sure, but it's our hyperbolic bullshit and it reads well, don't you think? And anyway, when you're declaring independence, "we just feel put out because the King and Parliament won't let us have our own representatives ... waaah!" doesn't really work, does it?

People having a right to choose how to govern themselves is not self determination.

yeah, it is. look it up.

However taken to its extreme, it leads to the individaul, IE "I as an individual wish to make my own choices about how I run my affairs, and not be infuenced or dominated by any one else". That is the logical extreme of self determination.

so? that still won't get you to "therefore it is logically necessary that they will choose to have no organization whatsoever, not even for self defense"

The case of the South seceding from the US is analogous to that of the US seceding from Britain

except that one case was done to enact self determination and in the other it was entirely to deny it.

except that one case was done to enact self determination and in the other it was entirely to deny it.
Then why deny the right? It should be a component of any democracy, especially one that seceded itself.

Then why deny the right? It should be a component of any democracy, especially one that seceded itself.

no, what i mean is that the only reason the south wanted out was that they were terrified that lincoln would somehow outlaw slavery (despite his lack of votes even if he tried). as such, southern secession was not an act of self determination, but an act to prevent the extension of self determination. which makes it a whole different ball game.

no, what i mean is that the only reason the south wanted out was that they were terrified that lincoln would somehow outlaw slavery (despite his lack of votes even if he tried). as such, southern secession was not an act of self determination, but an act to prevent the extension of self determination. which makes it a whole different ball game.

Be kind of hard for Lincoln to outlaw slavery since it was a constitutionally protected institution. The south wanted to not have the federal government telling them what to do, I really don't know what they were afraid of concerning slavery. Lincoln never would have gotten an amendment through banning it. The South was big on States rights. Though we know how that worked out for them, having a weak central government.

The South was big on States rights. Though we know how that worked out for them, having a weak central government.
Meh, as Machiavelli said, decentralized nations are easiest to conquer but hardest to rule. Hence why war-mongering nations are usually more totalitarian in nature.

The South was big on States rights.

but only in so far as they related to 'the peculiar institution'. specifically, only when they could be misused to defend their 'right' to own human beings. as soon as anyone else started using 'states rights' to shelter runaway slaves, the freedom loving southerners demanded that the federal government step in and put a stop to that nonsense.

but only in so far as they related to 'the peculiar institution'. specifically, only when they could be misused to defend their 'right' to own human beings. as soon as anyone else started using 'states rights' to shelter runaway slaves, the freedom loving southerners demanded that the federal government step in and put a stop to that nonsense.
Theoretically this should mean the US shouldn't have a problem with any genuine secessions.

Yes, so what?

That means NO LAWS. IE no domination or authority from anyone else. That is a dangerous society.

That means NO LAWS. IE no domination or authority from anyone else. That is a dangerous society.
Please read up on anarchism in all its forms. Then make such blatantly ignorant assertions.

Please read up on anarchism in all its forms. Then make such blatantly ignorant assertions.

Anarchy = chaos

Chaos = no order

No order = no laws

Conclusion - Anarchy = no laws

Anarchism is very nice ideally, but it will never practically work

A state has the right to leave the union at any time, Vermont wouldnt sign if they didnt have that in (and im not from vermont)
And America had the right to attack just as if they invaded any other nation who was not part of them.

And Yes the british pansies were losers and lost to the americans, they should stop complaining. If you cant hold on to your things, dont complain 200 years later when you are no longer the big boy.:p

Slavery was pretty cruel anyhow.

Anarchy = chaos

Chaos = no order

No order = no laws

Conclusion - Anarchy = no laws

Anarchism is very nice ideally, but it will never practically work

:rolleyes: You make a fatal error by premising that anarchy = chaos. Read up, find out why, then correct the flawed premises.

Im very anti anarchy, its retarded dosnt work.
It is each person rules themselves, meaning in true anarchy, I can just kill you, and all I got to worry about is your friends trying to kill me back, but if i kill them first, im gold

Info taken from www.redcoats.me.uk/index.htm
Prior to the American War of Independence the majority of colonists thought of themselves as British, respected English law and did not want to rebel against their King or change their agreements by force.
The thirteen colonies were Crown property and the settlers, even the Pilgrim Fathers (who only made up a third of those arriving on the Mayflower, the rest were radicals), agreed to work for a limited period under the terms and conditions of an indentured employee in exchange for free passage, a land grant negotiated with the Indians and a much better lifestyle than their counterparts in Britain.
In many respects the American colonies governed themselves, but as they started to expand, Indian depredations became an increasing problem, obliging Britain to deploy regulars, in order to police this situation and protect the colonist’s homes. Then during the seven-year war (1756-63) the French tried to crush and drive the (non-French) colonists out of America, so Britain had to maintain a force of ten thousand men to defend them, because when the colonists were left to their own devices, they nearly always lost, George Washington was particularly useless, getting himself captured by the French; (it wasn’t until the revolution that he became an outstanding general).




But the burden of protecting the colonists was nearly all being borne by the British taxpayer and protecting them during the seven-year war had added another 150 million pounds ($280,500,000) on top of an already crippling debt incurred while defending Hanover from the French, Austrian, Saxon, Swedish and Russian Alliance.
This deficit was made worse by corruption in the colonies actually causing tax revenue to cost Britain £8000 in order to collect £2000 tax, and this at a rate of only sixpence a year each.
The British had repeatedly tried to get the colonists to pay towards their protection, by introducing various taxes, but all were unpopular.
So after the seven-year war the British had a massive debt with few ways to reduce it, so they had to limit expenditure and as the colonists had been the beneficiaries, it was decided:

The settlers were to stop taking more and more Indian land, to limit spiralling defence costs and adding to the debt burden
The settlers were to stop murdering the Indians (many of which had helped defeat the French), so as not to upset the only money maker in America, that of trading for Furs
They had to stop endemic corruption such as smuggling and bribery, that was costing the exchequer so much money
They had to find a way of introducing a tax system that worked to help with the debt burden.

No taxation without representation, the rebels said, but they did have representation through the colonial legislature/governor. and were only being asked to pay one twenty-sixth of the tax that a British tax payer paid, who had and were effectively subsidizing them by bearing the burden of their protection.



Despite its notoriety, the objection to tax levied on tea was a ruse; the real issue was the British had, in an attempt to curtail their activities, under-cut the price of tea offered by smugglers, so it’s not surprising that most of the revolutionary leaders were in fact smugglers. Another reason, but not often mentioned was that the local legislatures for their own ends, kept devaluing their currencies to the point of making them virtually worthless. This cheated creditors out of money; but also created large numbers of debtors in the colonies.
The money owed wasn’t theirs to lose, so by promising to absolve these debts, the rebels devised a powerful incentive for support.
The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honouring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.

The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all atheists) only represented about 27% of two and quarter million colonists (although they said it was 33%), but even if this was correct they knew they would have never won power through a referendum, so as they possess considerable propaganda skills, they called themselves Patriots, contrived incidents like the so called ' Boston massacre', portrayed their own vested interests as philanthropic ideals, and insighted a reign of terror, aimed at civil authorities to disrupt society.




In reality Hancock was a very weathly smuggler, but the British had undercut his overpriced business and sommoned him to appear in court at a time he and Samuel Adams were known to have been in Lexington, where the shots of unknown source were fired at both sides resulting in several Militiamen being killed.
The others including Sam Adams (a failed businessman accused of embezzlement), Allen, Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison were bitter men, who for various reasons held grievances against the British.
The British only really wanted the smuggling and bribery to stop.

The rebel's strategy of attacking Loyalists, tarring and feathering them etc. to force them to resign their posts could have provided a role model for Hitler in the 1930's, as they also took advantage of unemployment to form their own militia, training them to take on the army (redcoats) while at the same time as appealing to everyone's sence of 'freedom', were really manoeuvring to dominate the colonists, majority of which were apposed to them.
They were in fact, what we consider today as insurgents/terrorists and those that most loudly espoused 'freedom', were controlling the largest number of slaves.




Washington had become the wealthiest man in the Americas by marrying into as much money as he could and was anxious to gain even more through land speculations, if the Indian's land, which was being protected by Britain could be seized, so it's not surprising he wasn't the type to want to pay any taxes
But it could be concluded that this motivation of greed had transformed him from a mediocre general under the British into an outstanding General, but he was at least as harsh on his troops as any British commander or even more so, as he would extend any lashing over several days for those he disapproved of, waiting for wounds to scab over before having them opened up again, then time and time again.
The one-sided accounts generally given by American historians, websites and film makers don't often mention the Battle of Penobscot Bay, probably because a mere 50 British redcoats held off 3000 Rebels for several days, until the Royal Navy arrived, at which point they embarked their 40 ships, but only to sail up river where they managed to shipwreck themselves and disappear into the Maine's wilderness never to be seen again.

The Loyalists were about 40% of the population (Long Island was 90% Loyalist) and those that just didn’t want to be on the losing side (including 'late' loyalists), made up the remaining 33%.
The Loyalists being law abiding were originally passive relying on the British for protection, but after they became increasingly persecuted, terrorised and humiliated by the Patriots,, about half of them became active.



Those Loyalists that didn’t become active and the Non aligned were forced under the threat of death to swear and sign oaths of allegiance to the rebel cause.
As this then turned it more into a civil war the patriots not only put their propaganda machine into overdrive, claiming such things as ‘Tories’ took babes from the breasts of their mothers to dash their brains out and the alleged Tarleton’s quarter, they also evolved a Presbyterian religion that as good as justified carrying out inhuman war crimes against Loyalists and keeping redcoat prisoners in such appalling conditions that most died.
At the battle of Kings Mount the rebels had surrounded a heavily outnumbered Loyalist unit, who's position had became hopeless so had (despite the rebels usually not taking Loyalist militia as prisoners), tried to surrender, but the Lowlife 'Over the mountain back-woodsmen' just cut Major Ferguson to pieces and violated his body and this to a man who's chivalry in battle had prevented him from shooting Washington in the back.



Also if any other examples of barbarity were required, they then used this distortion of religion to justify firstly starving those prisoners that they did take, then only to hang or shoot most of them later.
While the British won most of the battles, the conflict was really won by France Spain and Holland who also declared war on Britain with Russia Sweden and Denmark also denying trade. The coup-de-gráce was when French ships blockaded Chesapeake bay denying Cornwallis any relief and then a storm prevented him from retreating across the river, giving him no choice but to surrender.



These same French ships then went on to the West Indies where Rodney's fleet (who were one week too late to save Cornwallis), caught up with them and smashed them to pieces.




The French soldiers that had fought along side the rebels were surprisingly conciliatory towards Cornwallis's on his surrender at Yorktown, it's as if they knew their hypocrisy would rebound on them; they had fought a war that they couldn't afford, firstly to aid Americans rebels to remove the British, then (which isn’t well known) to try to regain lost territory by going to war with the American themselves, although an undeclared war, the French did actually try this but had no money to finance it.
Britian could have fought on, but her very existence was under threat and wisely decided to consolidate her forces to fight France and Spain and in doing so, defeated them.
This all left the French people so impoverished that their leaders who had decided to fight with the American rebels, suffered by their own example when having made inevitable the rebellion against King Louis XV1 and his entourage, they where duly executed in the French Revolution



Spain would also suffer a considerable loss when later her own colonies followed the American example.
During their rebellion the American republicans had relinquished almost universally their religion and morality, to a point that they drove most true church ministers out of the country which mitigated recriminations when the vast majority of ordinary Americans did not gain as a result of the rebellion, in fact most lost out, with the soldiers not receiving the land or the amount of pay they were promised, the Blacks remained as slaves and the Indians began to be decimated. Only some of the rebel leaders gained and they imposed far more taxes upon the people than Britain would have done and also set up the monopolies that was the real cause of the north v south civil war, emancipation of slaves only became an issue to defeat the south.

But what happened to the Loyalists was similar to what happened in Europe to the Jews during the 2nd World War and would have probably experienced the same fate, had the most venerable of them not fled, (mainly to Canada). The expression ‘Lynch Mob’ comes from the American Patriot Judge Lynch who hung anyone suspected of being a Loyalist with impunity.
The USA had even attempted to cut off a retreat for the Loyalists, by invading Canada with a large force, but a combination of the US troop’s long march through Maine’s wilderness led by Benedict Arnold; Carleton’s defensive tactics and a blizzard fortunately thwarted them.
Those loyalists that didn't flee ran the risk of being dispossessed, tortured or even murdered.
At the formal end of the war at treaty of Paris, the British gave the Americans very generous settlement terms on the understanding that they would earnestly recommend that the Loyalists would have their land returned to them or receive fair compensation for such, the Americans reneged on this, with only South Carolina making any real effort to compensate them. Unbelievable excuses were given why they broke this agreement, including it gave opportunities to others, which is the same as saying a theft gives opportunities to others.
But the consequence of this mentality was pathetic wagon trains of Loyalist women and children moving north and a bigoted sense of freedom it's legacy.
Any that returned to seek redress found their persecution was as fierce as ever.
So about 100,000 of them that would not live in fear of their lives or with no rights fled mainly to Canada to set up enduringly loyalist towns in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and of course the Bay of Fundy where descendents of 'loyalists par excellence' will still fly the union flag along side their own Provencial flags.




The Loyalist's descent were made up approx of 28% German (the name New Brunswick may reflect this), 23% Scottish, 18% English, 12% Irish, 8% Dutch, 5% French, 4% Welsh, 2% from Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden.
About as many again of African origin were on the loyalists side that shouldn't be forgotten and contrary to popular belief a high proportion of the Irish fought with the British.
About 4000 Loyalists, mainly the types most able to survive, but few with the quasi-urban background of their eastern brethren, went up through New York state to settle Kingston and Niagara and being better suited to the frontier struggle which faced them, formed the nucleus of what is now Ontario. Their provincial flag incorporates a union canton, showing their loyalist heritage and their motto 'Ut incepit Fidelis sic permanent' means Loyal she began loyal she remains.



Others fled to either Florida (then British), Bermuda, Bahamas/Abaco/ Eleuthera/ Exuma, Turks & Caicos, Jamaica, Dominica, St Lucia, Brazil (presumably as it seemed friendly) and Sierra Leone. Those that arrived in Britain were in a pitiable situation, so much so that Lord North the Prime Minister, intended to arrange for them to be given passage and land in Australia as free settlers, even to introduce them to potential Tahiti wives, but his government was defeated in a general election before this could take place.
His successor the hard-nosed Lord Sidney had different ideas and decided, following a period locking up mere petty criminals, to send them instead, to both reduce the 'self-induced' overcrowding problem in HM prisons and (one must conlude) to conveniently have less independent settlers for a new colony.
Most people in Vermont did not take part in the rebellion and wanted to remain independent or even part of Canada, but were threatened by Washington and forced to join the USA, so 8000 of it's settlers moved just across the border into Canada, to settle the eastern townships to escape the chaos, taxes and anarchy that had become rife in the new US.

In 1796 the British tried again to get compensation for the Loyalists by agreeing to withdraw from forts in Ohio country, if the Americans would agreed to act more effectively on Loyalists claims. The British withdrew on schedule but the Loyalist claims were never settled. even though the British did all they could to pacify the Indians



The final injustice was that the loyalists were made to disappear and what force of arms could not erase, US historians have so diligently buried, so that their persecution remains ignored and forgotten.


In 1812, while Britain was at the height of her struggle with a Napoleon led Europe, that Madison and his party were aiding, Britain's very survival was at stake, so she naturally tried to impound this aid.
In response the anglophobic US War Hawks knowing Britain was unlikely to be able to reinforce her meagre 5000 man force in Canada and as the total population of Canada was only appox. 500,000 against around 7,500,000 million in the USA, thought it was a good time to take advantage of Britain’s preoccupation.
So they claimed the British were arming the Indians, (when the truth was they didn’t have enough arms for themselves), grossly inflated the number of American sailors seized in error while boarding their ships to retrieve (poached) enlisted seamen and persuaded Madison, despite the suffering already inflicted on the Loyalists, to declare war and try to annex Canada which would effectively steal their land again.
America used it's considerable skill of propaganda to try to get the Canadians to switch allegiance and join the USA, but the Loyalists knew the worthlessness of President Madison's pompous proclamations and promises and wisely remained deeply distrusting of the US and it's brand of republicanism.
The US attacked with 2500 troops at Fort Malden where the only men General Brock had available was 150 British, 150 Indians and 300 Canadian militia (Loyalists), who knowing their fate if they failed, fought with such determination that another 700 Indians and former slaves joined in to help out repelling the invaders.



Upper Canada would have been vitally under siege, but for the Federalists in New England and Vermont who wanted nothing to do with this war and continued to trade and supply the British and along with the loyalists in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick helped them to continue to hold out.
Over the next two years the USA deployed considerably more resources than struggling Britain and Canada were able to, (who’s only ace was a naval blockade) and as a consequence gained territory.
An interesting factor was that some US troops, mainly those that had travelled all that way from the southern States, then used their right on several occasions not to cross into Canada, maybe they saw through their leaders rhetoric ?
As one would expect, the audacious USA employed a range of warring tactics, including proving (while on raiding parties) that they were still not above, their old tricks of committing atrocities against loyalists, at such places as York (Toronto), Port Dover, Port Talbot, Turkey Point and Long Point.
But it’s a tribute to the defenders that the US never achieved a decisive tactical advantage.
When Napoleon bit off more than he could chew and suffered a major setback in Russia, Britain could at last reinforce her beleaguered Canadian army, to at least match the USA’s and allow it to go on the offensive. Firstly to regain lost territory, then to take Maine. As a reprisal for York, they set fire to all public buildings in Washington, badly scorching the Presidential Mansion, so much so that it had to be whitewashed, they now call it the White House.



Then because British shipping had been suffering at the hands of pirates operating out of Baltimore, the Royal Navy was sent to curtail their activities. The pirates however had anticipated this and took the initiative by scuttling all their ships themselves to seal off the harbour from attack.
So to make sure they had got the point the British treated Fort McHenry to a rocket bombardment which together with Mary Pickersgill’s splendid ensign, gave Francis Key the inspiration to write a poem to the melody of an old British drinking song that is now the US national anthem
Thereafter with no sensible land objectives left, the British went on to lose a pivotal battle at Lake Champlain, where Captain Downie was badly let down and killed, then with the sudden disappearance of a covering mist while advancing through boggy ground they took heavy losses at New Orleans, just a day before news arrived that a peace treaty had been signed weeks earlier, making this the most tragic battle of this ill-conceived war.
The war was considered a disaster, predictably the US claimed they had won (as Madison’s neck was on the line), peace was declared and relations were normalised.
In an effort to try again, to get the Loyalist issues settled, the British gave up most of Maine (the exception was a disputed border area). The US not being content with this then indulged in some posturing and declared the phoney Aroostook war.
Britain then even conceded most of this disputed area on the solemn understanding that the USA would make every effort and to earnestly resolve the lingering Loyalist issues.
But true to form they not only reneged on this again, they exposed their vindictive nature by persecuting those amongst them (Federalists) that had opposed the war.
Since then US historians have continued to largely ignore the existence of Loyalists and what is written, is just a negative portrayal.
The Loyalists are demonised or dismissed as simply obtuse and their crime of not wanting to live under mob rule, chaos, insecurity, huge debts and the certainty of an ensuing civil war for the next 100 years or so, has in the eyes of the USA, forfeited them any rights.

Anarchism is bad. It is chaos, and thus leads to no organisation and extreme danger as there is no way for people to be protected by those who would seek to harm them.

Self-defense, even by proxy, is not a violation of self-determination; it is the prevention of such a violation.

Anarchism is opposed to chaos and advocates organization.

(And you are aware that one can posit a right without insisting that that right is absolute?)

So to claim that self deterimation is a human right must then lead you to claim that all governments are evil.

No, just states.

Thus the American revolution was unjustified since it leads to one government being replaced by another.

It was a step in the right direction.

Im very anti anarchy, its retarded dosnt work.
It is each person rules themselves, meaning in true anarchy, I can just kill you, and all I got to worry about is your friends trying to kill me back, but if i kill them first, im gold
Nevermind that law enforcement will continue to exist...

:rolleyes: You make a fatal error by premising that anarchy = chaos. Read up, find out why, then correct the flawed premises.

Why dont you demonstrate it, since you are proposing it.

Why dont you demonstrate it, since you are proposing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Read this. All of it. Then make assertions once you possess the necessary knowledge.

Anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) (or market anarchism, see especially (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_order_and_the_use_of_violence)), anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism), anarcho-primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism), anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism), to name but a few.

I can just kill you

It has been argued that resistance against the "right" of a king to exercise his power without the consent of his subjects is legitimate. Why does it not follow that resistance against an even greater violation, namely murder, would not be accepable?

Was the American Revolution justified? Yes. The colonists felt that their most fundamental rights as human beings--their "inalienable rights"--were being violated. That is a reasonable grounds for revolution. The colonists attempted a peaceful separation from England before firing "The Shot Heard 'Round the World" at Lexington in April 1775. They had purused diplomatic alternatives for a "redress of their grievances"; since no such redress was forthcoming, they had every right to resolve the issue in the military sphere.

Was the secession by the Southern states justified? You're damn right, it was. Just like the American colonists 75 years before them, they felt that the larger central government was usurping power that rightfully belonged to their local governments and, therefore, that their basic rights were, if not violated, were in danger of being violated. Any group of people has the right to break off from its government, if it does so peacefully and has a legitimate grounds for doing so. The South attempted to do so.

Was the American Civil War justified? Not by a mile. If the Southern states want to secede, thereby severely weakening their own economic status and perpetuating the terrible and inhumane practice of slavery, let them. There was no need to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union (and personally, I wouldn't be all that upset if South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina weren't part of the U.S.). Now, if, later on, the Southern states had realized the dire economic and social consequences that resulted from their secession and petitioned for readmittance to the Union, the Union should not have allowed them to rejoin until all (yes, I said all) of the Union's conditions had been met.

Long story short: Whoever wants to secede has the right to if they do it peaceably. If they try a military solution before all diplomatic options have been exhausted, they should, by all means, be met and subdued with all reasonable force.

Self-defense, even by proxy, is not a violation of self-determination; it is the prevention of such a violation.

The colonies were not defending themselves against Britian. Britian was defending them, against the Indians and the French.


Anarchism is opposed to chaos and advocates organization.

Anarchism relies on the use of force to compel organisation. Using shared ownership of everything and having unified agreement, and if there is not agreement, for the agreement to be forced.


(And you are aware that one can posit a right without insisting that that right is absolute?)

Indeed, but then such a right must be clarified. And so far such clairification is lacking


No, just states.

So what form of government is acceptable

Was the American Revolution justified? Yes. The colonists felt that their most fundamental rights as human beings--their "inalienable rights"--were being violated. That is a reasonable grounds for revolution. The colonists attempted a peaceful separation from England before firing "The Shot Heard 'Round the World" at Lexington in April 1775. They had purused diplomatic alternatives for a "redress of their grievances"; since no such redress was forthcoming, they had every right to resolve the issue in the military sphere.


Feeling your human rights are being violated and them actually being violated are two diffrent things. You will thus have to demonstrate how said rights were violated.

why would law enfoucment exist in true Anarchism?
Then its not Anarchism in its purest form

and as for the bs of an Artical, I was reading it, got to the point where it started shooting off more lies such as declaring all founding fathers were athiest, and well, as a history buff, I almost barfed from how full of shit it was.

and The colonists did not have reprisentation in parlamint, the governers were not reprisentatives of the people they ruled, they were reprisentatives of teh King for the people, and the colonial legislators had no power or influnce on parlament

Was the American Revolution justified? Yes. The colonists felt that their most fundamental rights as human beings--their "inalienable rights"--were being violated. That is a reasonable grounds for revolution. The colonists attempted a peaceful separation from England before firing "The Shot Heard 'Round the World" at Lexington in April 1775. They had purused diplomatic alternatives for a "redress of their grievances"; since no such redress was forthcoming, they had every right to resolve the issue in the military sphere.

Was the secession by the Southern states justified? You're damn right, it was. Just like the American colonists 75 years before them, they felt that the larger central government was usurping power that rightfully belonged to their local governments and, therefore, that their basic rights were, if not violated, were in danger of being violated. Any group of people has the right to break off from its government, if it does so peacefully and has a legitimate grounds for doing so. The South attempted to do so.

Was the American Civil War justified? Not by a mile. If the Southern states want to secede, thereby severely weakening their own economic status and perpetuating the terrible and inhumane practice of slavery, let them. There was no need to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union (and personally, I wouldn't be all that upset if South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina weren't part of the U.S.). Now, if, later on, the Southern states had realized the dire economic and social consequences that resulted from their secession and petitioned for readmittance to the Union, the Union should not have allowed them to rejoin until all (yes, I said all) of the Union's conditions had been met.

Long story short: Whoever wants to secede has the right to if they do it peaceably. If they try a military solution before all diplomatic options have been exhausted, they should, by all means, be met and subdued with all reasonable force.
Just what rights were the Southern States being denied? The canidate they wanted to win lost a fair national election and someone they didn't like to into power. What there is a violation of their rights?

why would law enfoucment exist in true Anarchism?
Then its not Anarchism in its purest form
Anarchism advocates a society without government, not a society without authority or organization.
and as for the bs of an Artical, I was reading it, got to the point where it started shooting off more lies such as declaring all founding fathers were athiest, and well, as a history buff, I almost barfed from how full of shit it was.

they were a mixture of agnostics, deists, and atheists, as well as a few christians.

The colonies were not defending themselves against Britian. Britian was defending them, against the Indians and the French.

The colonies were defending themselves against the unjust rule of Britain.

Britain's prior actions in the region have no relevance, because the colonies were the only ones with the right to decide whether Britain's rule benefitted them or not.

Anarchism relies on the use of force to compel organisation.

No, it doesn't.

Using shared ownership of everything

Not "everything."

and having unified agreement, and if there is not agreement, for the agreement to be forced.

What are you talking about?

Indeed, but then such a right must be clarified. And so far such clairification is lacking

It is fairly absolute in political terms (that is, no political entity would violate it in a just society), but there are definitely circumstances where doing so would be legitimate morally, on essentially utilitarian grounds.

Feeling your human rights are being violated and them actually being violated are two diffrent things. You will thus have to demonstrate how said rights were violated.

No, no demonstration is necessary. Perception, to a very large extent, is reality; if you think your rights are being violated, there is no quantifiable political difference between that and your rights actually being violated.

One could argue that this would inevitably lead to a series of smaller and smaller secessionist states, each arguing that certain rights were not guaranteed to them by their parent nation. Possible, I suppose, but not likely; the administrative costs of guaranteeing every last right to the people is prohibitive, and these separatist states would soon realize that being guaranteed the inalienable right of receiving a free pack of mint Tic-Tacs every Friday afternoon is far outweighted by the cost of the government buying 300 million packs of Tic-Tacs every week.

Anarchism advocates a society without government, not a society without authority

You have it backwards, at least if you define "authority" as "capability to rule another."

Authority mean goverment, thus it is against Anarchism. Anarchy is rule of individual, any authority is against indvidual freedoms. no law enfourcment since their are no laws

and as for them being agnostic athiest and that stuff, This artical is a propoganda bs to make the british dictatorship look like angles (a monarchy is a dictatorship and nothing else) the founders were rather christian and that can be seen in how america was set up to be very christian and the origanal drafts of the constitution and declaration of independence

Just what rights were the Southern States being denied? The canidate they wanted to win lost a fair national election and someone they didn't like to into power. What there is a violation of their rights?

As I said, there doesn't necessarily have to be a true violation of rights for a legitimate secession to follow. In this case, however, there is one; the Constitution specifically states that all rights and powers not specifically granted to the federal government are granted to the states or the people (10th Amendment). The federal government was trying to prohibit slavery in certain states; it is not specifically granted that power, and the eleven states of the Confederacy recognized a violation of the 10th Amendment when they saw one.

(a monarchy is a dictatorship and nothing else)
As opposed to a representative democracy? :rolleyes: The dictatorship of an invisible representative elite which actually enjoys a superior standing with regard to law is somehow better from this angle?

Authority mean goverment, thus it is against Anarchism. Anarchy is rule of individual, any authority is against indvidual freedoms. no law enfourcment since their are no laws
Then how can the individual ensure their freedom from others? It's no longer anarchy if others can simply do what they will - hence the existence of law in anarchism.

Anarchism
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder

That is what anarchism is. The other definitions are irrelevant to it.

There is no law in anarchy; anarchists believe that the government is the ultimate source of all evil, and that without the government, everybody will be nice to everybody else. The slightest dash of common sense will tell you that basic human nature prevents people from being nice to each other, at least all of the time. A complete ignorance of human nature is the fundamental flaw of anarchy (and socialism, and communism, and...)

If I drive a Yugo and my next-door neighbor drives a Ferrari, in theory, the only thing that prevents me from stealing his Ferrari is the threat of being punished in a court of law. Remove the police force and courts from the system, and people will be limited only by their own consciences, which, as we know when given a large group with the slightest bit of inequality, is really no limit at all.

Authority mean goverment, thus it is against Anarchism. Anarchy is rule of individual, any authority is against indvidual freedoms. no law enfourcment since their are no laws
anarchism still has voluntary leadership, this whole chaos "24/7/365 riot" idea is just some teenage bullshit.

When used by non-anarchists, the word "anarchy" connotates a lack of control and a chaotic environment. The association is so strong that many anti-statists prefer the term "anarchism". The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, anomie or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Communities govern themselves, and set up rules for their society, thus we have some semblence of government.

As I said, there doesn't necessarily have to be a true violation of rights for a legitimate secession to follow. In this case, however, there is one; the Constitution specifically states that all rights and powers not specifically granted to the federal government are granted to the states or the people (10th Amendment). The federal government was trying to prohibit slavery in certain states; it is not specifically granted that power, and the eleven states of the Confederacy recognized a violation of the 10th Amendment when they saw one.
Those limitations of slavery occured in the territories, which the federal gov. had power over and as part of compromises between the slave states and the free states in the creation of new states designed to keep a balance between the two. In other words the South had agreed to those all previously, but when an individual with abolitonist leanings, leanigs mind you Lincoln had made no moves to outlaw slavery, they left the Union and fired the first shot by attaking a federal military base. So no, that dosen't justify their leaving the Union try again.

You misunderstand the idea of anarchy. There is no law in anarchy; anarchists believe that the government is the ultimate source of all evil, and that without the government, everybody will be nice to everybody else. The slightest dash of common sense will tell you that basic human nature prevents people from being nice to each other, at least all of the time. A complete ignorance of human nature is the fundamental flaw of anarchy (and socialism, and communism, and...)
Prove this. Anarcho-capitalism, at the very least, does provide for law. Anarcho-syndicalism can too. I am not sure how other forms of anarchism handle law, but I doubt that they neglect it. Any form of anarchism which allows for voluntary cooperation (ie all) can easily set up a legal system of its own without need for government. Not all forms of anarchism are left-wing either (e.g. anarcho-capitalism, -primitivism, -individualism).

If I drive a Yugo and my next-door neighbor drives a Ferrari, in theory, the only thing that prevents me from stealing his Ferrari is the threat of being punished in a court of law. Remove the police force and courts from the system, and people will be limited only by their own consciences, which, as we know when given a large group with the slightest bit of inequality, is really no limit at all.
Legal and protection agencies can be formed on the basis of voluntary cooperation and exchanges. It need not be provided by the State.

There is no law in anarchy; anarchists believe that the government is the ultimate source of all evil, and that without the government, everybody will be nice to everybody else. The slightest dash of common sense will tell you that basic human nature prevents people from being nice to each other, at least all of the time. A complete ignorance of human nature is the fundamental flaw of anarchy (and socialism, and communism, and...)

You clearly have no conception of what anarchy is.

Learn, then argue.

Then how can the individual ensure their freedom from others? It's no longer anarchy if others can simply do what they will - hence the existence of law in anarchism.



That is what anarchism is. The other definitions are irrelevant to it.

you picked the parts of the definition you liked, It says OR LAW. no law, no lawenfourcment, ill kill you and your friends

and a reprisentative democracy is better then a dictatorship of a king

you picked the parts of the definition you liked, It says OR LAW. no law, no lawenfourcment, ill kill you and your friends
I picked the definition that applies to anarchism as a political term. Like it or not, the others are alternative uses for the word.

and a reprisentative democracy is better then a dictatorship of a king
Prove it.

So was the Civil War justified?

yes...yes it was in fact.

Those limitations of slavery occured in the territories, which the federal gov. had power over and as part of compromises between the slave states and the free states in the creation of new states designed to keep a balance between the two. In other words the South had agreed to those all previously, but when an individual with abolitonist leanings, leanigs mind you Lincoln had made no moves to outlaw slavery, they left the Union and fired the first shot by attaking a federal military base. So no, that dosen't justify their leaving the Union try again.

Jeez, chill out. Before you crucify me, know that I consider the North to have held the moral high ground; I'm just trying to figure out why we couldn't have let the South go.

So you know, the South's "attack" on Fort Sumter was not an attack in the conventional sense. Confederate militia from South Carolina occupied the other two forts guarding Charleston Harbor and delivered an ultimatum; abandon Ft. Sumter to the Confederacy, or face military consequences. Lincoln sent a ship to resupply Ft. Sumter; the South viewed this as an act of war and attacked. Had Lincoln allowed the South to leave the Union and simply abandoned Fort Sumter and all other military posts in the South, the war never would have happened.

And the compromises between the Southern states and the federal government? They were Band-Aids on missing limbs. They worked only as temporary fixes; as more and more people in the South began to recognize that the federal government had no right to dictate what was a slave state and what was a free state, anti-federalist sentiment grew in the South. Almost from the day the Constitution was ratified, the Civil War was inevitable as long as the federal government continued in its attempts to interfere with the semi-autonomy the Constitution specifically granted to the Southern states.

you picked the parts of the definition you liked, It says OR LAW. no law, no lawenfourcment, ill kill you and your friends

The dictionary is a fairly bad place to find political definitions.

Reprisentative, you have a hope for influnce in goverment, Dictatorship, you got none. Prove otherwise

You chose the lies about anarchisim you want to follow, ill prove the truth i want to:p

The dictionary is a fairly bad place to find political definitions.
It's still apt though to differentiate between political anarchism, and other meanings of the word. If he cannot use a dictionary this is not my fault.

No, no demonstration is necessary. Perception, to a very large extent, is reality; if you think your rights are being violated, there is no quantifiable political difference between that and your rights actually being violated.

Yes there is. Media distortion shows that. For instance, people in the UK often will say that they believe their right to privicy is invaded by the use of speed cameras. This is not the case since speed cameras and other CCTV devices only moniter you in the public sphere of life (IE when you are outside in public). In that instance there are most likly several other people who can see you also, are they violating your right to privicy? No.


One could argue that this would inevitably lead to a series of smaller and smaller secessionist states, each arguing that certain rights were not guaranteed to them by their parent nation. Possible, I suppose, but not likely; the administrative costs of guaranteeing every last right to the people is prohibitive, and these separatist states would soon realize that being guaranteed the inalienable right of receiving a free pack of mint Tic-Tacs every Friday afternoon is far outweighted by the cost of the government buying 300 million packs of Tic-Tacs every week.

Tic Tacs are not a right.

You clearly have no conception of what anarchy is.

Learn, then argue.

Really? Please educate me on the true definiton of anarchy.

As for anarchism, prove to me that LAw enfourcment is not goverment

Reprisentative, you have a hope for influnce in goverment, Dictatorship, you got none. Prove otherwise
Yes, and with a Monarchy the power is not invisible, nor is it above the law - ergo why most Monarchs feared their subjects so much. With most representative democracies there is a delusion on part of the populace that they are the rulers. False. They elect them. These rulers then have at their disposal immensely powerful tools of coercion (public law, the military, tax funds etc). They are shadow rulers, but rulers nonetheless. Keep in mind most Monarchies operated without a fully fledged system of rights, which is a rather modern concept.

Read. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11846231&postcount=103) Again, I recommend you read Bertrand de Jouvenel's "Sovereignty" and see how Divine Law functioned. I cannot say I am a fan of medieval monarchy, but most people know nothing of it.

Really? Please educate me on the true definiton of anarchy.

Self-government. The abolition of a government separate from society that rules over it, and its replacement with one that is coequal with society.

That, and the replacement of compulsory hierarchical association with voluntary egalitarian association.

Yes there is. Media distortion shows that. For instance, people in the UK often will say that they believe their right to privicy is invaded by the use of speed cameras. This is not the case since speed cameras and other CCTV devices only moniter you in the public sphere of life (IE when you are outside in public). In that instance there are most likly several other people who can see you also, are they violating your right to privicy? No.



Tic Tacs are not a right.

First: I would argue that that speed cameras and CCTV devices in public places do violate privacy, but that's a whole separate argument.

Second: I know that Tic-Tacs are not a right, but some people believe that they are. The government should not provide me with Tic-Tacs, but they also should not prevent me from getting Tic-Tacs from the private sector.

your argument isnt based on history, If monarchs feared their subjects they would not rule them. They did not fear them for they had... laws...army...taxes... and reprisentative democrocies do not elect themselves, and most Monarcies did not have rights and the King was above all laws.

you have proved nothing, try again

Jeez, chill out. Before you crucify me, know that I consider the North to have held the moral high ground; I'm just trying to figure out why we couldn't have let the South go.

So you know, the South's "attack" on Fort Sumter was not an attack in the conventional sense. Confederate militia from South Carolina occupied the other two forts guarding Charleston Harbor and delivered an ultimatum; abandon Ft. Sumter to the Confederacy, or face military consequences. Lincoln sent a ship to resupply Ft. Sumter; the South viewed this as an act of war and attacked.

And the compromises between the Southern states and the federal government? They were Band-Aids on missing limbs. They worked only as temporary fixes; as more and more people in the South began to recognize that the federal government had no right to dictate what was a slave state and what was a free state, anti-federalist sentiment grew in the South. Almost from the day the Constitution was ratified, the Civil War was inevitable as long as the federal government continued in its attempts to interfere with the semi-autonomy the Constitution specifically granted to the Southern states.
Sorry didn't mean to sound quite so combative, ok maybe a little;), Thing was it wasn't a compromise between the federal goverment and the South it was a compromise between the southern slave states and the northern free states through their reps in the federal goverment. The northern states also recieved pressure from the south through the feds, in the laws requreing them to turn over escaped slaves. The autonomy wasn't just granted to southern states it applied to the northern ones as well, yet the south didn't mind useing the feds to force their will on the north either, so I don't see how its possiblt to paint the south as the victims of federal persecution when they were just upset that the abolitionist as apossed to pro slavery canidate won.

Self-government. The abolition of a government separate from society that rules over it, and its replacement with one that is coequal with society.

That, and the replacement of compulsory association with voluntary association.

This cannot be. The word "anarchy" is derived from the Greek roots "an" ("without") and "arch" ("government"). Anarchy calls for the abolition of government, period; none of this "coequality with society," as you claim. One could argue (as I do) that goverment and society already are equal, and that government is merely an extension of society.

In the United States, we have no compulsory association; voluntary association is everywhere. You are not forced to join a particular religion or political party--yet clearly the United States is not an anarchy. I thus find your definition of anarchy impossible to reconcile with reality.

your argument isnt based on history, If monarchs feared their subjects they would not rule them. They did not fear them for they had... laws...army...taxes... and reprisentative democrocies do not elect themselves, and most Monarcies did not have rights and the King was above all laws.

you have proved nothing, try again
They feared them because they ruled them. It set them apart from the masses. The army that Monarchs have, if we are speaking pre-Absolute Monarchy was provided by the nobility - a group often at arms with the Monarch. It was very much a relationship of interdependence. Taxation was lowest under all monarchies, even absolute ones. Even under absolute Monarchy, only the nobility had great power over the army. The King, pre-Absolute Monarchy, was not above the law with regard to Divine Law - the Church made sure of this. Do yourself a favour, and buy Oxford's History of Medieval Europe, A History of the Modern World by R. Palmer and any of de Jouvenel's books.

Educate yourself.

Sorry didn't mean to sound quite so combative, ok maybe a little;), Thing was it wasn't a compromise between the federal goverment and the South it was a compromise between the southern slave states and the northern free states through their reps in the federal goverment. The northern states also recieved pressure from the south through the feds, in the laws requreing them to turn over escaped slaves. The autonomy wasn't just granted to southern states it applied to the northern ones as well, yet the south didn't mind useing the feds to force their will on the north either, so I don't see how its possiblt to paint the south as the victims of federal persecution when they were just upset that the abolitionist as apossed to pro slavery canidate won.

The South was not blameless in the leadup to the Civil War--far from it. While it is true that the Missouri Compromise, Clay Compromise, Compromise of 1850, etc., etc. were compromises between North and South and not between South and Washington, the South felt that the anti-slavery north had perpetual control of both houses of Congress and that the South was, effectively, shut out from the legislative process. They seceded to end what they felt was a tyranny of the majority.

no, you should educate yourself child. Monarchies were not always at odds with the nobility, the few times are seen with things like the magna carta, and that was cause the monarch was not the one who was supposed to be in power came to be and was not liked by the nobility. Your argument is basicly saying that the nobility were better off, and what power did peasents have in monarcies, none at all. The only way you got a king to listen was by war.

Go back to school

The South was not blameless in the leadup to the Civil War--far from it. While it is true that the Missouri Compromise, Clay Compromise, Compromise of 1850, etc., etc. were compromises between North and South and not between South and Washington, the South felt that the anti-slavery north had perpetual control of both houses of Congress and that the South was, effectively, shut out from the legislative process. They seceded to end what they felt was a tyranny of the majority.

Well, they are taking their pound of flesh back now adays;)

Well, they are taking their pound of flesh back now adays;)

Very clever. An excellent point, and one with which I most heartily agree.

;) , indeed.

no, you should educate yourself child. Monarchies were not always at odds with the nobility, the few times are seen with things like the magna carta, and that was cause the monarch was not the one who was supposed to be in power came to be and was not liked by the nobility. Your argument is basicly saying that the nobility were better off, and what power did peasents have in monarcies, none at all. The only way you got a king to listen was by war.

The fact that you don't even know how the Divine Right of Kings worked pre-Absolute Monarchy makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about at all.

If a Monarchy was not at odds with its nobility, it was at odds with the peasantry (or in fear of them). Monarchs knew it was in their interest to be judicious with their power. Peasants indeed had little power under Monarchy - it is a delusion to think that they do now though. The only time you have any real power is elections. Furthermore, the delusion that "we the people" rule is the ultimate disincentive for any rebellion against disproportionate use of power by a "democratic" State. "Democracy" is a delusion, just as is the "representative" adjective attached to it.

So your argument is this... cause in Monarchy you had no power... you were better off. Cause that is what you are saying

So your argument is this... cause in Monarchy you had no power... you were better off. Cause that is what you are saying
...

Your powers of inference are lacking. My main thrust is that the Monarch was not above the so-called natural law, that he was seen as a separate entity to the people - ergo one to be viewed with suspicion. This distinction is no longer made in modern democracies. Public law is supreme, the rulers are shadow rulers and law is a mean to an ends, not an end in itself.

So your argument is this... cause in Monarchy you had no power...

And we have power now?


What Europa is saying is that Monarchs had their power limited by the feudal system that they themselves ruled over. If a monarch did something to piss off the nobles, then the nobles could, and would de-throne that monarch. The nobles were wealthy landowners who had serfs to work their land. The nobleman you served was basically your boss and your representative in the government rolled into one miserable burrito.

the South felt that the anti-slavery north had perpetual control of both houses of Congress and that the South was, effectively, shut out from the legislative process.

except that they had kept the senate balanced essentially the entire time

They seceded to end what they felt was a tyranny of the majority.

ah yes, the tyranny of being forced to give up owning people

Divine right was that God gave them the right to rule and only them, they were not viewed with suspition, they were seen as perfect in the high days of monarcies. the church was below them as seen by things like the french creating a new papal state in(near) france and hand choosing a french pope. In england when the pope didnt do what he wanted, he created the Anglican church. The Monarch was above the law, Polotitions or your so called shadow goverment are not

This cannot be. The word "anarchy" is derived from the Greek roots "an" ("without") and "arch" ("government").

"Arch" references rule, not government. (And "rule" and "rules" are different things.)

Anarchy calls for the abolition of government, period;

Depends on your definition of "government," really.

If government is conceived of as necessarily a class structure, that is, a hierarchy with rulers and ruled, anarchism gets rid of it.

If government is conceived as a system of social norms, with varying degrees of enforcement, anarchism retains it - but in a manner where individuals and groups themselves are in charge, instead of having this power granted to a separate class of rulers.

One could argue (as I do) that goverment and society already are equal, and that government is merely an extension of society.

You could, yes, but that claim would be nonsense. Representative democracy is incompatible with anarchism, especially with as extended a centralized bureaucratic apparatus as ours and as large a political unit.

In the United States, we have no compulsory association;

Yes, we do. If I live here, I am compelled to obey the laws, even if they have nothing to do with protecting self-determination.

Furthermore, there is no explicit right of secession and the political unit is too large to have a genuinely voluntary political arrangement.

voluntary association is everywhere. You are not forced to join a particular religion or political party--yet clearly the United States is not an anarchy.

Because every society has a degree of voluntary association. Anarchism is the extreme.

I added a reference to hierarchy in an edit apparently after you replied, and with regard to the US that is probably a more crucial issue.

This cannot be. The word "anarchy" is derived from the Greek roots "an" ("without") and "arch" ("government"). Anarchy calls for the abolition of government, period; none of this "coequality with society," as you claim. One could argue (as I do) that goverment and society already are equal, and that government is merely an extension of society.
Anarchy, in Greek, can mean i) without rulership ii) without a beginning. It is not ex necessitate tantamount to disorder. Anarchism as a political system is exactly as Soheran described it.

In the United States, we have no compulsory association; voluntary association is everywhere. You are not forced to join a particular religion or political party--yet clearly the United States is not an anarchy. I thus find your definition of anarchy impossible to reconcile with reality.
You are forced to pay taxes, are you not? You are forced to use government courts and protection (the police), are you not? You are forced to join the Army if the government decrees it, are you not?

back to anarchy, What if i feel it is my right to kill you, isnt saying i cant aboloshing my right?

Divine right was that God gave them the right to rule and only them, they were not viewed with suspition, they were seen as perfect in the high days of monarcies. the church was below them as seen by things like the french creating a new papal state in(near) france and hand choosing a french pope. In england when the pope didnt do what he wanted, he created the Anglican church. The Monarch was above the law, Polotitions or your so called shadow goverment are not
Ugh... as I thought. You are completely ignorant of the workings of the Divine Right. It only weakened ex post the Enlightenment, as the Catholic Church's power waned. Monarchs were never seen as perfect, in spite of what propaganda might've existed. They were always seen as someone separate to the people, as a potential threat. The problem nowadays is so few would take a similar view of the President, who has a great deal of powers himself.

As for the Pope d'Avignon, that affair didn't last very long, now did it?

And please, educate yourself on the nature of public law. It confers many immunities and powers on the elected representors and the members of government.

except that one case was done to enact self determination and in the other it was entirely to deny it.
Only if you buy into the myth that the War for Southern Independence was solely and only about slavery. Which it wasn't.

Anarchy = chaos
Wrong.

Im very anti anarchy, its retarded dosnt work.
So says the person who lacks knowledge of English grammar and spelling.


It is each person rules themselves, meaning in true anarchy, I can just kill you, and all I got to worry about is your friends trying to kill me back, but if i kill them first, im gold
Only if you don't know anything about anarchy is it what you're proposing.

Here's a hint: read up on it.

Divine right was that God gave them the right to rule and only them, they were not viewed with suspition, they were seen as perfect in the high days of monarcies. the church was below them as seen by things like the french creating a new papal state in(near) france and hand choosing a french pope. In england when the pope didnt do what he wanted, he created the Anglican church. The Monarch was above the law, Polotitions or your so called shadow goverment are not

That veary much depends on the period your talking about. The French king at the time of the Avigon papacy for example didn't rule because of divine right, though that was used to justify his rule, he ruled because he was strong enough to make the nobles listen to him. If he had been weak the nobles, and the pope for that matter, would have ignored him Divine Right or no. The power of a monarchy really depends on when you look at them, the France's "Sun King" being an example of a high point while many of the early french Kings would be examples of a lowes, Louis the VII wife actualy brought more power and wealth to the marriage as the daughter of the Duke of Aquataine than Louie did himself for example.

why would law enfoucment exist in true Anarchism?
Then its not Anarchism in its purest form
Of course it is. All that anarchy is happens to be that there is no government, not there there are no laws or protection agencies or whatnot.

What if i feel it is my right to kill you

then you are wrong

There is no law in anarchy;
Wrong.

[snip the rest, since it relies on that false premise]

EM, you are wrong, and your only evidence supporting you, is yourself. The church has always been below monarchs despite looks otherwise, and has been well before the lutherin movement. look at Thomas à Becket, he was put into power cause the king said so. And that was well before.
Monarchs were not seen as a threat by thepeople they were the leaders of a nation with out any one else to challange them

Of course it is. All that anarchy is happens to be that there is no government, not there there are no laws or protection agencies or whatnot.

who decides the laws or creats the agencies? and if people do then are they not a goverment

EM, you are wrong, and your only evidence supporting you, is yourself. The church has always been below monarchs despite looks otherwise, and has been well before the lutherin movement. look at Thomas à Becket, he was put into power cause the king said so. And that was well before.
Monarchs were not seen as a threat by thepeople they were the leaders of a nation with out any one else to challange them
Oh bloody hell, why am I bothering. I've told you which books to read. Now go and educate yourself. You will see they corroborate what I say.

Hint: pre-Absolute Monarch threatened by people, nobility, other Kings, Church.

Here, to get you started: http://members.shaw.ca/competitivenessofnations/Anno%20de%20Jouvenel.htm.

Those limitations of slavery occured in the territories, which the federal gov. had power over and as part of compromises between the slave states and the free states in the creation of new states designed to keep a balance between the two. In other words the South had agreed to those all previously, but when an individual with abolitonist leanings, leanigs mind you Lincoln had made no moves to outlaw slavery, they left the Union and fired the first shot by attaking a federal military base. So no, that dosen't justify their leaving the Union try again.
Actually, Lincoln made the first move by reinforcing the garrison at Ft. Sumter (a customs house) in order to ensure that tariffs (outrageously high and always detrimental to the southern states to the benefit of the northern ones) were collected.

You might want to read up on the tariff situation, especially the 1837 "Tariff of Abomination".

who decides the laws or creats the agencies? the people within their own commune
and if people do then are they not a goverment
correct.

who decides the laws or creats the agencies?
Private legal firms write legal codes, which are then sold to insurance agencies or defense agencies, which re-sell them to customers. As to who creates the agencies--who creates a barber shop now? Who creates a pet store? Same answer.

why should I follow laws set up by legal firms? it gets me nothing and limits my freedoms. They have no power and their laws only work if you are willing to follow them since their is nothing behind them.

And EM, you never showed me why Monarchy was better then Democrocy

And EM, you never showed me why Monarchy was better then Democrocy
Actually, I have, repeatedly. You ignore the arguments with strawmen and regurgitated social democratic nonsense. I've now given you the name of my sources to go and find out for yourself as it is late, and I am tired of arguing with brick walls.

your only argument is cause in a monarchy you have no power, but know it. and in a democracy you only have power at elections. Thats not eveidence that retarded

Was the American Rvolution a justified act of resistance to a tyrant? Or an irrational act of Treason?

I don't think it was treason by the definition defined in the Constitution. The Brits overused such a charge to such a degree that the Americans felt it had to be properly defined. (The Brits used it whenever they didn't like someone, and by that I mean anyone. Peasants who merely spoke out against the king could be charged with treason. Nonetheless...

While the general unrest began as a result of unreasonable taxation, the issue quickly became one of freedom. The ideals of the Enlightenment had long since taken root in the colonies, and it seems they already resented the authority of the original land-owning nobles and the hereditary aristocracy that controlled them from three-thousand miles away. In America, nobles were basically people of wealth and power, who were very frequently self-made. No one who has worked their life long to get where they are is going to like it when someone who hasn't claims to be better because of factors that they had nothing to do with. I'm getting off topic here...

The issue quickly became one of freedom. The people wanted a country in which they could rule themselves- a country in which everyone was equal and had equal chances. The people wanted the assurance that they could select their own rights and that those rights would not be subject to the whim of someone who thinks only of himself and thinks nothing of them. They wanted to chose what was best for themselves and to have those choices as law, not as a meaningless request for law. They wanted to be subject to their own authority. They wanted independance.

I believe that all people have the right to be free. Thus, if they feel they need to govern themselves to retake that freedom, then let them govern themselves.

As for the Confederate side of the Civil War, I do not believe their attempt at independance was justified on the grounds of what I said above. While they thought they were fighting for freedom, one of the primary freedoms they were fighting for was the right to enslave others- to take away all freedoms, even the most basic laws of humanity itself. As I've written in previous threads, liberty, by its very nature, does not include the liberty to destroy liberty itself. In laymen's terms, my rights stop where yours begin. I do not have the right to take away your rights. Thus, since the South was fighting for the right to slaves, they were defying the very principal of freedom at its core. As such, their revolution was an unjustified attempt to selfishly take what was not theirs (not the land- the people).

I do support the Revolution, because although peace is prosperity, prosperity cannot exist without freedom. (How are you supposed to soar if you can't even spread your wings enough to get up off the ground?) A governemt that governs not for its people but for itslef crosses the line of governing and becomes a dictatorship.

Freedom is priceless.

your only argument is cause in a monarchy you have no power, but know it. and in a democracy you only have power at elections. Thats not eveidence that retarded
As I said, I cannot be blamed if your powers of inference are sorely lacking.

What I said is: i) Qua peasants, you see the Monarch as someone separate to you, who is there to rule but at the same time protect - if he tries to extort you, you have the power to rebel and remove him, or intimidate him into "better behaviour". The Monarch, for most time pre-Louis XIV, was subject to the same laws as everyone else, and the Catholic Church ensured this. Only later did this deteriorate. The Author of power was God, His earthly servant was the King, and His enforcer was the Church. Incidentally, Le Frond (a rebellion against Louis XIV's father) was a classical example of nobility vs. Monarch. The Monarch enjoyed none of the powers of a dictator.
ii) As the ruled in a "representative democracy" there is this delusion that the ruled = rulers, ie of autonomy, which is fictional nonsense. The ruled enjoy superior powers qua rulers via the concept that public law > private law. The ruled tend towards apathy. Government is now automatic. They believe their rights are sacrosanct, and that the "benevolent" government would never violate them. The Overseer of the one entrusted with power, ie the courts, are fused with it.

That is the argument. The books I've pointed to will offer the evidence.

the peasents didnt have power and if rebeled (they often did) were often crushed, the what about my evidence of the churches lack in power, that you ignored. and what about the fact that polotitions are not above the law and fear us and we can revolt just as much as peasents of old could if not more. Your argument isnt based on solid footing, you may want to be a serf, I dont want to be owned by land

You are forced to pay taxes, are you not? You are forced to use government courts and protection (the police), are you not? You are forced to join the Army if the government decrees it, are you not?

No, no, and no. I can choose not to use those things; I simply face the consequences of doing so. I'm not forced to pay my taxes; if I choose not to, I'll go to jail. I'm not forced to use police and the courts; if I choose not to, I'll have no legitimate recourse if I commit a crime or a crime is committed against me. I'm not forced to join the Army; I can claim conscientious objector status or go to jail for the duration of the draft. The government doesn't force anybody to do anything; it just metes out certain consequences for doing or not doing certain things.

And those examples aren't "association" in the strictest sense, anyway.

the peasents didnt have power and if rebeled (they often did) were often crushed,
Political power? No. The power to pressure the Monarch? Sure. Riots may have been crushed, but after considerable effort and damage done to the Monarch's property, ie the Kingdom.

the what about my evidence of the churches lack in power, that you ignored.
Because it was irrelevant. It had nothing to do with pre-Absolute Monarchy. If you think the Catholic Church was weak during the High Middle Ages, you seriously need some history lessons.

and what about the fact that polotitions are not above the law and fear us and we can revolt just as much as peasents of old could if not more.
Are you aware that the law governing the actions of government is superior to private law, or not?

Your argument isnt based on solid footing, you may want to be a serf, I dont want to be owned by land
I am not pro-feudalism - I am arguing against the nonsense that floats around about it.

except that they had kept the senate balanced essentially the entire time



ah yes, the tyranny of being forced to give up owning people

First: By the time the Civil War rolled around, there was one more free state than slave state, so free states controlled the Senate.

Second: I'm not agreeing with the institution of slavery; I find it to be morally reprehensible. I also find adultery to be morally reprehensible, but I don't think the federal government should legislate adultery either.

it just metes out certain consequences for doing or not doing certain things.
It orders you to do something, or to suffer the consequences. How is this "free association"? It is also the monopoly provider of these services.

And those examples aren't "association" in the strictest sense, anyway.
They are, actually. You associate with your protector freely, if you're the one who chooses whom to pay.

Beccet was high, so was the french popes that lasted 80 years. thats nothing to scoff at. and Anyhting a peasent can do, we can do just as easily. And a Peasent couldnt vote out a king, we can vote out a polotition. and Public law is superior, but we are under it and so are the polotitions, they cant murder people, kings could and did (beccet) they cant have sex with minors, (look at the news). Your argument is irrelevent, and you are being stubbern and closed minded ignoring things that dont help you and falsafing things that do. and Absolutism monarchy is monarchy and they are all dictators the same as CAstro, Stalin or anyone else

I'm not agreeing with the institution of slavery; I find it to be morally reprehensible. I also find adultery to be morally reprehensible, but I don't think the federal government should legislate adultery either.

!!!

Freedom is priceless.

The most important political truth there is.

[QUOTE=Europa Maxima;11848219]It orders you to do something, or to suffer the consequences. How is this "free association"?[QUOTE]

Every time you spend $2.40 on a gallon of gasoline (at least that's how much it is where I live), you're being forced to either buy that gallon of gasoline or face the consequences. If you buy that gallon of gasoline, you have the benefit of being able to drive an extra 22 miles (in my car) but can't get a caramel apple empanada with your Taco Bell lunch; if you don't buy the gasoline, you could buy the empanada if you could get to the Taco Bell--which you can't, since you'll run out of gas;) .

Life--not just government, but every sphere of the human experience--is about being "forced" to do something or to face the consequences. When I'm forced to choose between gas and dessert, does that make Conoco and Taco Bell parts of the government? Absolutely not. Being forced between an action (and its consequences) and the counterpart inaction (and its consequences) is what we all do, every day, whether we're dealing with our government or our next-door neighbor.

why should I follow laws set up by legal firms?
Because you contract with them and thus agree to those laws voluntarily.


it gets me nothing
Other than being able to allocate more of your resources to what you want, you mean.

Please do think before you post.

I got one thing to point out:

The colonists, they are british citizens and therefore subject to the authority of Parliament and the King.

The point of the war was to no longer be subject to the King. As such, this is pretty much a moot point.

No, no, and no. I can choose not to use those things; I simply face the consequences of doing so. I'm not forced to pay my taxes; if I choose not to, I'll go to jail.
You don't have to pay the mafia the protection money, either. But they'll make you an offer you can't refuse.

And if "pay us for these services we're foisting on you, regardless of it you use them or not, or we'll toss you in jail" isn't force, then I don't know what force is.

Because you contract with them and thus agree to those laws voluntarily.



Other than being able to allocate more of your resources to what you want, you mean.

Please do think before you post.

I can get those resources with our with out those laws, and If i agree to them, then can I also just stop following them, and why should I contract them, since they will charge me for something that only I will follow since no one else agreed, and why not use those funds to do something like... steal your land and get myself more money. and Also, money would have no value, as it has nothing saying it has value, so ill stop accepting your money and instead just take what I want at gun point.

Beccet was high, so was the french popes that lasted 80 years. thats nothing to scoff at.
And again, this is not pre-Absolute Monarchy.

and Anyhting a peasent can do, we can do just as easily.
I think you are still missing the point - that we tend towards apathy, as we do not distinguish between the governed and the governors. We think we are the governors. Also, consider that the Church was an institution the peasants often found support from against the Monarch.

And a Peasent couldnt vote out a king,
That's right - assassinations were usually used instead, or intimidation (riots etc).

we can vote out a polotition.
With difficulty.

and Public law is superior, but we are under it and so are the polotitions, they cant murder people,
Except that politicians and government agents in general enjoy all of the benefits it confers. We enjoy none.

kings could and did (beccet)

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/becket.htm
A king of England could not remove a pope from his position but popes claimed that they could remove a king by excommunicating him - this meant that the king’s soul was condemned to Hell and people then had the right to disobey the king.

He is said to have shouted out "will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest ?" Four knights heard what Henry had shouted and took it to mean that the king wanted Becket dead. They rode to Canterbury to carry out the deed. The knights were Reginald FitzUrse, William de Tracey, Hugh de Morville and Richard le Breton. On December 29th 1170 they killed Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. After killing him, one of the knights said "Let us away. He will rise no more."
Yes, I see how he murdered him... I hope you see how powerful the Church was back then. Its courts laid down the law back then. The problem was they were not doing enough to curb lawlessness in England. Henry II had to step in to restore order.

they cant have sex with minors, (look at the news). Your argument is irrelevent, and you are being stubbern and closed minded ignoring things that dont help you and falsafing things that do. and Absolutism monarchy is monarchy and they are all dictators the same as CAstro, Stalin or anyone else
Even though their regimes never led to the same level of abuse of human capital? Even though total war is a concept unknown to absolute monarchies of the time?

*snip*
You're seriously comparing opportunity costs with a scenario in which your freedoms are curbed? Your analogies suffer from a weakness - you cannot be coerced into buying something from a given vendor - the government can coerce you into "purchasing" its services. In the first case association is free, in the second it is not. Plain and simple.

Because you contract with them and thus agree to those laws voluntarily.
On the proviso that they offer you protection. Best you make it clear for our feeble-minded friend.

Please do think before you post.
You overestimate him...

And again, this is not pre-Absolute Monarchy.


I think you are still missing the point - that we tend towards apathy, as we do not distinguish between the governed and the governors. We think we are the governors.

Your argument then isnt the goverment but the people, if we had a monarchy why wouldnt we be just as apathetic. And not all are apathetic or pasive, ever heard of revolutions that happen to democracies? military overthrows, Kennedy assasination


That's right - assassinations were usually used instead, or intimidation (riots etc)./QUOTE]
And they were responded to by harsh supresion by the military, just as if they happend today. We can still do all those and apathy is a lame argument for your side

[QUOTE]
With difficulty.

not really, get people to vote they do, if no one votes for, he losses, think why the pedophile isnt running again?

Except that politicians and government agents in general enjoy all of the benefits it confers. We enjoy none.

sorry, your life must suck, I get the benifites. The police arrive if i call them, I get the aid of federal scholerships, Ive never been mugged rapped or murderd. Im sorry that all these things happen to you


Yes, I see how he murdered him... I hope you see how powerful the Church was back then. Its courts laid down the law back then. The problem was they were not doing enough to curb lawlessness in England. Henry II had to step in to restore order.

He was still in power, and what about the 80 years of rule of France over the PApacy?


Even though their regimes never led to the same level of abuse of human capital? Even though total war is a concept unknown to absolute monarchies of the time?
They just didnt have the tech we did to do it, they did do things as horrid, the crusaderds killed teh entire city of Jerusolum when they captured it from muslims, the 30 years war entire peasent villages were destroyed

Your argument then isnt the goverment but the people, if we had a monarchy why wouldnt we be just as apathetic. And not all are apathetic or pasive, ever heard of revolutions that happen to democracies? military overthrows, Kennedy assasination
My argument is actually the form of government, or rather what goes with it. I'll forget for a moment that I dislike rule by majority as a concept, and hypothetically accept it. It still requires an active population to work and monitor the rulers - there is no Overseer like the Church, as the division of powers with regard to courts has not been implemented, or perhaps cannot. Therefore we suffer from a system in which the ruled think they are the rulers and are too apathetic to exercise what little power they have. No effective overseer, the author of power is indifferent to who governs them - a recipe for disaster. The system itself (or rather those who are in it) creates the delusion that the ruled are the rulers eliminating the distinction between the two "classes". There is this belief that we are all equal, when the ruling body is really above us. As for military coups, they tend to establish military dictatorships - hardly something to boast of. The assassination of Kennedy is a mystery. Revolutions are rare in any social democracy.

To put it bluntly, to claim that our system of democracy enjoys an inherently superior conception of Sovereignty and overall awarenss vis-a-vis Monarchy is to claim absolute nonsense.

And they were responded to by harsh supresion by the military, just as if they happend today. We can still do all those and apathy is a lame argument for your side
Not really - when possible, another monarch simply took over the role. And my argument is again that we can, but will not, do all of this, and this is due to inherent problems with the notion of "representative democracy".

not really, get people to vote they do, if no one votes for, he losses, think why the pedophile isnt running again?
I was referring to impeechment. Notice Hungary, for instance. The current PM lied about the taxes he promised. He refuses to step down. Therefore, not only was he elected on false pretenses, but also when the author of his power demands of him to step down, he refuses. This should highlight the fact that "we the people" do not rule.

sorry, your life must suck, I get the benifites. The police arrive if i call them, I get the aid of federal scholerships, Ive never been mugged rapped or murderd. Im sorry that all these things happen to you
You still do not know what public law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law)is.

He was still in power, and what about the 80 years of rule of France over the PApacy?

This was a reaction to the Church's power, and one that ended it. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the period I speak of which precedes it.

Overall, it seems an exaggeration to characterise the Papacy as a puppet of the French throne. Even during its Avignon period, 1305 - 1378, the Papacy always pursued its own goals of uniting Christian lords (for example by mediating between France and England) and to uphold the position of the Church (for example by preventing charges of heresy against Boniface VIII made by King Philippe). Only in later times, when a strong French King faced a weak pope, the Papacy made significant concessions to the French king, as under the most French-friendly Pope Urban V who was pressured by the King of France. The basis for exerting such pressure can be found in the changed balance of power in the 14th century.

However, the focus on administrative and juristic issues characterised the entire Avignon Papacy and consequently it lost much respect among lower nobility and common people, who were more sympathetic to religious orders vowed to poverty rather than to a church hierarchy where cardinals often lived lives of Princes.

The Nobility subsequently became the greatest threat to Monarchy. Only with Louis XIV did Monarchy become absolute, and not even then can it mimick the features of a dictatorship.

They just didnt have the tech we did to do it, they did do things as horrid, the crusaderds killed teh entire city of Jerusolum when they captured it from muslims, the 30 years war entire peasent villages were destroyed
Firstly, it was decreed by the Church, not any specific Monarch, secondly it was not a total war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war). Neither was the Thirty Years War.

He was still in power, and what about the 80 years of rule of France over the PApacy?And what about the time the Papacy made the HR Emperor come begging for forgivness barefoot and in sackcloth? The power of the papacy waxed and wanned(sp) depending on who held it, same as with all rulers of the time.


They just didnt have the tech we did to do it, they did do things as horrid, the crusaderds killed teh entire city of Jerusolum when they captured it from muslims All, right I admit this is a bit anal but they didn't kill everyone, they spared the christians for the most part, although the new Patriarch they put in power did kick out all those not of the Latin rite, they did butcher most, they did leave a few alive to handle the burial of all the dead, of Jewish and Muslim inhabitants, but contemporary records show that that level of brutality was considered shocking even in the west when news of the event made it back.

And what about the time the Papacy made the HR Emperor come begging for forgivness barefoot and in sackcloth? The power of the papacy waxed and wanned(sp) depending on who held it, same as with all rulers of the time.
He seems completely and utterly oblivious to the power the Church wielded over medieval Monarchs, and also seems unable to realize that I am referring to a period before the end of Papal power.


All, right I admit this is a bit anal but they didn't kill everyone, they spared the christians for the most part, although the new Patriarch they put in power did kick out all those not of the Latin rite, they did butcher most, they did leave a few alive to handle the burial of all the dead, of Jewish and Muslim inhabitants, but contemporary records show that that level of brutality was considered shocking even in the west when news of the event made it back.
Except one problem - it was neither issued by a Monarch nor was it a total war, which were the points I brought up. That it was a brutal war is well known.

Except one problem - it was neither issued by a Monarch nor was it a total war, which were the points I brought up. That it was a brutal war is well known.
It wasn't really ordered by anyone in power back in Europe, some of the nobles, I believe it was Tancred or something that kinda of sparked it off by immediatly beelineing to the Dome of the Rock upon entry to the city and then proceeding to desecrate it, greed might have had a bit to do with it too as a lot of the killing was part of the general looting and robbing that was going on, although the burning of Mosques(sp) and Synagouges(sp) with people seeking sanctuary inside were probably the most brutal parts of the sack.

It wasn't really ordered by anyone in power back in Europe,
To put it another way, it was initiated by the Church.

some of the nobles, I believe it was Tancred or something that kinda of sparked it off by immediatly beelineing to the Dome of the Rock upon entry to the city and then proceeding to desecrate it, greed might have had a bit to do with it too as a lot of the killing was part of the general looting and robbing that was going on, although the burning of Mosques(sp) and Synagouges(sp) with people seeking sanctuary inside were probably the most brutal parts of the sack.
War back then was brutal, sure. It's nature was fundamentally different to modern wars though, and not just with respect to technology.

even though i'm an american, when people make a big deal about how terrible monarchy is, it makes me want to like it. Whenever people talk about revolutions, i always side with the monarchy. I guess the American Revolutionary War isn't really a normal revolution...as in, it didn't contain civil war with it, like other countries did. so yeah.


You'd think I'm Aaron Burr from the way I'm droppin' Hamiltons.

To put it another way, it was initiated by the Church.

Depends on what you mean by that, the Church did launch the 1st Crusade, but they weren't particularly happy about what went down during the sack of Jerusalem, not that the Urban II heard about it he died before the news made it back west. The Crusaders went a bit rogue on a number of things, in no small part due to the fact that the Popes representitive had died due to an epidemic that swept the army at Antioch leaving the nobles pretty much unsupervised, which for the most part led to a fair bit of infighting, but also led them to pay a bit less respect to at least the Orthodox Christians of the region than Urban wanted.

Name one King who actually lost power to the PEasents. one, you keep saying they could and they never did. and their are powers to oust the president, you just wont accept them. your argument is more or less
blah blah blah im right and wont listen
you go live with a monarchy who dosnt care what you think
they dont, and never will, adnt he Chruch couldnt give a fuck at that time as well about peasents
ill live where i have power to do something

Depends on what you mean by that, the Church did launch the 1st Crusade, but they weren't particularly happy about what went down during the sack of Jerusalem, not that the Urban II heard about it he died before the news made it back west. The Crusaders went a bit rogue on a number of things, in no small part due to the fact that the Popes representitive had died due to an epidemic that swept the army at Antioch leaving the nobles pretty much unsupervised, which for the most part led to a fair bit of infighting, but also led them to pay a bit less respect to at least the Orthodox Christians of the region than Urban wanted.
Oh, definitely - it spiralled out of control eventually. The Papacy even condemned certain actions of the Crusaders. It was a most undesirable state of affairs, for almost all parties involved. Yet it was not a total war, and neither was it the fault of any monarch.

even though i'm an american, when people make a big deal about how terrible monarchy is, it makes me want to like it. Whenever people talk about revolutions, i always side with the monarchy. I guess the American Revolutionary War isn't really a normal revolution...as in, it didn't contain civil war with it, like other countries did. so yeah.


You'd think I'm Aaron Burr from the way I'm droppin' Hamiltons.

why do you side with Monarcies, cause they rule with an iron fist and burtulate their people with no cheacks
and the church isnt one, they never overthrow a nation ever and are jsut as evil and heartless as the kings

Name one King who actually lost power to the PEasents. one, you keep saying they could and they never did. and their are powers to oust the president, you just wont accept them. your argument is more or less
blah blah blah im right and wont listen
you go live with a monarchy who dosnt care what you think
they dont, and never will, adnt he Chruch couldnt give a fuck at that time as well about peasents
ill live where i have power to do something

Louis XVI?

Name one King who actually lost power to the PEasents. one, you keep saying they could and they never did.
Charles II in the Glorious Revolution is one example. Usually Kings were usurped by the power of the Papacy. Furthermore, rebellions were usually a method of coercing a King into certain actions rather than removing him.

and their are powers to oust the president, you just wont accept them. your argument is more or less
blah blah blah im right and wont listen
you go live with a monarchy who dosnt care what you think
they dont, and never will, adnt he Chruch couldnt give a fuck at that time as well about peasents
ill live where i have power to do something
Wow, complete and total strawman. It's not my fault if you don't understand basic concepts like Public Law. I am not pro-Absolute Monarchy, or even pro-Monarchy in most of its forms. To say that Monarchy = Dictatorship though is something I will readily challenge.

To say that Monarchy = Dictatorship though is something I will readily challenge.

Do you think that dictatorships were not also checked by other power interests?

I can get those resources with our with out those laws,
Doubtful. You'd have to expend a lot on defense just for yourself. Ever read "Leviathan" by Hobbes? Think "state of nature".


and If i agree to them, then can I also just stop following them,
Then you'd be in breach of contract.


and why should I contract them, since they will charge me for something that only I will follow since no one else agreed,
Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever.


and why not use those funds to do something like... steal your land and get myself more money.
Because you'd have to expend a lot of resources to do it.


and Also, money would have no value,
non sequitur.

Do you ever think before you post?

On the proviso that they offer you protection. Best you make it clear for our feeble-minded friend.
I was hoping he couldn't be quite that stupid.

Do you think that dictatorships were not also checked by other power interests?
To the extent that Monarchies under Papal scrutiny were? No. Feudal monarchies placed the Monarch against the Church, the Nobility (which was his source of military power) and the general population. Specific forms of Monarchy (namely absolute Monarch) had features similar to dictatorships, but never did they lead to the same extent of abuses as one. The notion of authorship of power also differs in Monarchies.

The joke is always on those who think that individual incidents in history are "morally linked" to other incidents, such that one outcome should show how all future "similar" incidents should resolve.

You laugh at what you see as hypocracy, when you are the one who is laughed at for being so naive as to not see the true machinations of the workings of history.

It's not about 'morally' linking things... I don't recall invoking 'morality'. The point I was making is that US foreign policy is full of shit.

Invade Iraq because of the WMD's... yeah, right... and yet, when faced with a region that we think really might have WMD's, we sit pissing our pants hoping China will deal with the 'nasty man'.

On the other hand, of course, China are the bad guys because of their overly possessive policy regarding territory they consider 'theirs'... but, oh what's this? Our own policy is historically identical... and, anyway, let's just keep quiet about it, because China is kinda big and kinda scary... and right at the moment they are also 'regulatin'. We'll bitch about it again, later... once we feel safe again.

Hey, Insignificant, if we're not supposed to judge on past behavior, then what should we judge on... our knowledge of the future? Or I could just toss bones and see what they tell me. Face it, if a guy moved into your neighborhood that was a convicted child molester and then tried to claim he was setting up to protect children, you hold a healthy amount of skepticism. You wouldn't go, well that child molestation he did had some extenuating circumstances.

Our current behavior is not that of a country that holds human rights dear, particularly those of non-citizens. Given that fact, we're not really in a position to tell other countries that they must rise to a standard we don't actively care about. And yes, I'm talking about punishment without trial, torture of innocents and illegal search and seizure. All ideals this country was founded upon and all ideals we're happy to violate when we want it bad enough.

Hey, Insignificant, if we're not supposed to judge on past behavior, then what should we judge on... our knowledge of the future? Or I could just toss bones and see what they tell me. Face it, if a guy moved into your neighborhood that was a convicted child molester and then tried to claim he was setting up to protect children, you hold a healthy amount of skepticism. You wouldn't go, well that child molestation he did had some extenuating circumstances.

Our current behavior is not that of a country that holds human rights dear, particularly those of non-citizens. Given that fact, we're not really in a position to tell other countries that they must rise to a standard we don't actively care about. And yes, I'm talking about punishment without trial, torture of innocents and illegal search and seizure. All ideals this country was founded upon and all ideals we're happy to violate when we want it bad enough.

Damn straight.

It's easier to beat up on an evil drunk who is half starving and full of drugs than an evil juvenile who works out regularly and has lots of friends.

So, if given the choice as to which one to smack down, what would be your first choice?
Well, to make you're analogy more realistic. The evil drunk is falling down and while he falls I lose sight of his hands and even though I've already searched him I assume he's going for a gun and I beat him to death. The evil juvenile is actually going for a gun, I can see the gun and he's telling me that he's going for the gun. Instead of dealing with the very real threat of the juvenile, because "it's too hard *insert whiny voice*" I pretend like the real threat is not an issue and look the other way and beat on the drunk to make myself feel better.

For me, I would go for the evil juvenile first. The last thing I want to do with that kid is turn my back on him and get involved in a long drawn out fight that will leave me weak, bloodied and exposed.

Well, when we first started the War on Terror, you need to remember we had been attacked by terrorists near the end of Clinton's term, and people like this: :mp5:, were in massive platoons, marching in the streets on patrols, and were forcing women into the armed forces, as to have better chances of destroying us. After the cleansing of Afganistan was finished, and we set up a government, and left protective forces there, we realized that the rest of the Taliban had fled to nearby countries, like Iraq, where the corrupt Dictator was housing them, we attacked him, because he had threatend us with WMDs.

We have already rid ourselves of any organized army, and only have guerilla fighters to deal with, before the country can become a safe place to live.

The thing with North Korea is, it only happened around two weeks ago. Even though the US is a super-power, we cannot just recall troops who just returned from duty, and send them off to fight. America is a Democracy, meaning that we need to try to try using deplomacy first. Only once all peacful measures have been exhausted, would the U.N. and The Allies of old start to use force to maintain safety. Sure, you may argue that america, Russia, India, and European countries have Nuclear weapons, but Kim Jong Il isn't like us. His regime pulled out off the Geneva Treaty, started testing weapons, and threatend us right off the bat. His country is DIFFERENT than ours. He runs one of the last remnants of communism, and is a crazy man, whose people are poor, and dying, because he spends vast amounts of resources on millitary funding, not his people's welfare.

This is not the kind of man you want to have weapons of this calibur.

Well, when we first started the War on Terror, you need to remember we had been attacked by terrorists near the end of Clinton's term, and people like this: :mp5:, were in massive platoons, marching in the streets on patrols, and were forcing women into the armed forces, as to have better chances of destroying us. After the cleansing of Afganistan was finished, and we set up a government, and left protective forces there, we realized that the rest of the Taliban had fled to nearby countries, like Iraq, where the corrupt Dictator was housing them, we attacked him, because he had threatend us with WMDs.

We have already rid ourselves of any organized army, and only have guerilla fighters to deal with, before the country can become a safe place to live.

The thing with North Korea is, it only happened around two weeks ago. Even though the US is a super-power, we cannot just recall troops who just returned from duty, and send them off to fight. America is a Democracy, meaning that we need to try to try using deplomacy first. Only once all peacful measures have been exhausted, would the U.N. and The Allies of old start to use force to maintain safety. Sure, you may argue that america, Russia, India, and European countries have Nuclear weapons, but Kim Jong Il isn't like us. His regime pulled out off the Geneva Treaty, started testing weapons, and threatend us right off the bat. His country is DIFFERENT than ours. He runs one of the last remnants of communism, and is a crazy man, whose people are poor, and dying, because he spends vast amounts of resources on millitary funding, not his people's welfare.

This is not the kind of man you want to have weapons of this calibur.

Quoted before he can delete it. :D

Why would I delete it? I simply responded to the statements above mine.

Also, the Civil War wasn't justified, because what is listed under the Constitution, is they can only secede for a reasonable excuse. Electing a certain President s not what would be defined as an excuse...:p

A fascinating and utterly unreal theory of governance.

I respect you immensely for your beliefs (this is NOT sarcasm).

You have no idea what you're talking about, of course, other than to propose a beautiful fantasy as possibility, which is nonsensical but very laudable, on your part.
Prove it. And do not try and patronize me.


And they will and do, but they can never KEEP the power they "reclaim" because it is simply contrary to human nature.

Here's a simple question for you: Do you "reclaim" the power to not do that which you would rather not do, always, such that you never do what you don't want to do?

If you do not ALWAYS refuse to "reclaim" your power to "disobey" the "oppressor", then there is no difference between you and "normal society", in terms of accepting the "rule of representatives", except the time frame that it is acceptable to "do that which you would rather not do".

In other words, you demonstrate the impossibility of your "anarchic" theory by your own behavior.
Existence without a society is difficult, yes. That is where free association comes in - don't like a society? Leave it, and venture to one you prefer, or even band with some like-minded fellows and create your own. My point is that individuals should realize that they are the only source of legitimate power in any system - and therefore should exercize their right to deny this system its legitimacy when it impedes on their freedom, within reason (saying that this means one can murder whomever they like is nonsense - this would be a limit to freedom in itself, and a cause of provocation to have your freedom broken). It's essentially a system of "An it harm none, do what thou wilt" as opposed to democracies where all sorts of legislation may dictate one's life. I am not anarchist, by the way.

I believe that the American Revolution was justified, because the Americans had no representation in their government. In my view, a government where the leader is not somehow answerable to the people (through a legal process) has no innate right to exist, and any revolution against it is justified.

The South, on the other hand, had representation. Had Congress passed repeated acts that clearly favored the North over the South, and the South could do nothing to stop them, the Civil War would have been justified.

As for anarchy, I believe that anarchy is literally self-destructive: in an anarchic society, people will eventually form governments for mutual protection. Anarchy doesn't work, because many people will prefer the security a government and military can provide.

I do not accept that in a representative democracy, we are ruled over by invisible agents. I know who is my President, and who my senators are. I cannot recall the name of my current representative, but I could find out in a heartbeat.
And our leaders can be charged with crimes. I know of nothing that prevents the President being charged with a felony provided there is evidence he did it.

If I have any of my hard facts wrong, please give me correct information, so I may rethink my opinions.

Why would I delete it? I simply responded to the statements above mine.

Also, the Civil War wasn't justified, because what is listed under the Constitution, is they can only secede for a reasonable excuse. Electing a certain President s not what would be defined as an excuse...:p
There's nothing directly in the Constitution about secession. It's part of Amendment 10.

Well, when we first started the War on Terror, you need to remember we had been attacked by terrorists near the end of Clinton's term, and people like this: :mp5:, were in massive platoons, marching in the streets on patrols, and were forcing women into the armed forces, as to have better chances of destroying us. After the cleansing of Afganistan was finished, and we set up a government, and left protective forces there, we realized that the rest of the Taliban had fled to nearby countries, like Iraq, where the corrupt Dictator was housing them, we attacked him, because he had threatend us with WMDs.

We have already rid ourselves of any organized army, and only have guerilla fighters to deal with, before the country can become a safe place to live.

The thing with North Korea is, it only happened around two weeks ago. Even though the US is a super-power, we cannot just recall troops who just returned from duty, and send them off to fight. America is a Democracy, meaning that we need to try to try using deplomacy first. Only once all peacful measures have been exhausted, would the U.N. and The Allies of old start to use force to maintain safety. Sure, you may argue that america, Russia, India, and European countries have Nuclear weapons, but Kim Jong Il isn't like us. His regime pulled out off the Geneva Treaty, started testing weapons, and threatend us right off the bat. His country is DIFFERENT than ours. He runs one of the last remnants of communism, and is a crazy man, whose people are poor, and dying, because he spends vast amounts of resources on millitary funding, not his people's welfare.

This is not the kind of man you want to have weapons of this calibur.

People really believe this stuff? Seriously? Iraq had nothing to do with the Taliban. Nothing. No link has ever been made. They were not permitted in Iraq until AFTER we removed Hussein. Iraq had no WMDs. It was not a threat to us. There really is no evidence that any of these thing are not true and much that they are. Was Hussein a bad guy? Hell yeah. Am I glad he's been removed from power? Yes. Did I support the war? Yes, but not the way it was entered into. However, to pretend like Iraq was even remotely in the top five threats in the world toward the US is simply a fabrication.

There simply isn't any evidence that Saddam could have threatened us any time in the next two decades. Now, Iran, China, North Korea. These are threats. And North Korea has nukes now and a completely nuts dictator.

If WMDs were our driving factor that's where we'd be. If Al Queda was the driving factor we would have spent more time stabilizing Afghanistan. There simply isn't any evidence that this BS argument you're making. It's just wild assertion.

I do not accept that in a representative democracy, we are ruled over by invisible agents. I know who is my President, and who my senators are. I cannot recall the name of my current representative, but I could find out in a heartbeat.
And our leaders can be charged with crimes. I know of nothing that prevents the President being charged with a felony provided there is evidence he did it.
When I say invisible I do not mean unknown - I mean overly trusted and not viewed with suspicion. We see them as equals, whereas they are not. They wield significant power. And read up on public law - especially the power of the executive to legislate, and the immunities it enjoys (for instance, in some countries political immunity can even protect one from criminal prosecutions).

I do not accept that in a representative democracy, we are ruled over by invisible agents. I know who is my President, and who my senators are. I cannot recall the name of my current representative, but I could find out in a heartbeat.
And our leaders can be charged with crimes. I know of nothing that prevents the President being charged with a felony provided there is evidence he did it.
When I say invisible I do not mean unknown - I mean overly trusted and not viewed with suspicion. We see them as equals, whereas they are not. They wield significant power. And read up on public law - especially the power of the executive to legislate, and the immunities it enjoys (for instance, in some countries political immunity can even protect one from criminal prosecutions).

I was talking about the US. I know that in other countries, the head of state is immune to criminal prosecution. Not here AFAIK.
In the US, we view our politicians with great suspicion. In my personal views, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, as I do with most people. However, if evidence emerges that a politician is untrustworthy, I will treat them accordingly. For instance, I believe that Hastert has probably known about Foley's emails for a while, given the number of congressmen who say they told him (I am not excluding the possibility that those congressmen are lying). Hastert may have tried to cover up Foley's behavior, or dismissed it as harmless. I don't know, so I will not pass judgement on him, yet.

Also, the Civil War wasn't justified, because what is listed under the Constitution, is they can only secede for a reasonable excuse. Electing a certain President s not what would be defined as an excuse...:p

I'd really love to see you quote by article and section where the Constitution says anything remotely like that.

People really believe this stuff? Seriously? Iraq had nothing to do with the Taliban. Nothing. No link has ever been made. They were not permitted in Iraq until AFTER we removed Hussein. Iraq had no WMDs. It was not a threat to us. There really is no evidence that any of these thing are not true and much that they are. Was Hussein a bad guy? Hell yeah. Am I glad he's been removed from power? Yes. Did I support the war? Yes, but not the way it was entered into. However, to pretend like Iraq was even remotely in the top five threats in the world toward the US is simply a fabrication.

There simply isn't any evidence that Saddam could have threatened us any time in the next two decades. Now, Iran, China, North Korea. These are threats. And North Korea has nukes now and a completely nuts dictator.

If WMDs were our driving factor that's where we'd be. If Al Queda was the driving factor we would have spent more time stabilizing Afghanistan. There simply isn't any evidence that this BS argument you're making. It's just wild assertion.

It is worth flipping thorugh the history books also... look at WHY Saddam was 'a bad man'... he didn't start out that way.

And no - I don't mean the abusive family - I mean the fact that Saddam entered Iraqi politics as a moderate force... contested the power of the extremists, and brought 'secular' law into the arena. He even empowered women. The Saddam of the 21st century was largely a prioduct of his environment, I think.

I was talking about the US. I know that in other countries, the head of state is immune to criminal prosecution. Not here AFAIK.
In the US, we view our politicians with great suspicion. In my personal views, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, as I do with most people. However, if evidence emerges that a politician is untrustworthy, I will treat them accordingly. For instance, I believe that Hastert has probably known about Foley's emails for a while, given the number of congressmen who say they told him (I am not excluding the possibility that those congressmen are lying). Hastert may have tried to cover up Foley's behavior, or dismissed it as harmless. I don't know, so I will not pass judgement on him, yet.

Actually, elected Federal officials in the US are immune from criminal prosecution. Of course, once they're removed from office via impeachment or public embarrassment, they can be brought up on charges. I'm not sure on how it works for indictment, however.

Actually, elected Federal officials in the US are immune from criminal prosecution. Of course, once they're removed from office via impeachment or public embarrassment, they can be brought up on charges. I'm not sure on how it works for indictment, however.
Problem being, how often will the public actually act on their power to impeech? Also, not all of the executive is visible - most of it, even if known, goes largely unobserved. I would be surprised if most Americans knew what laws are passed from day to day. Not to mention that certain members of the executive have powers to legislate themselves (under public law, of course).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkitania
It's easier to beat up on an evil drunk who is half starving and full of drugs than an evil juvenile who works out regularly and has lots of friends.

So, if given the choice as to which one to smack down, what would be your first choice?

Well, to make you're analogy more realistic. The evil drunk is falling down and while he falls I lose sight of his hands and even though I've already searched him I assume he's going for a gun and I beat him to death. The evil juvenile is actually going for a gun, I can see the gun and he's telling me that he's going for the gun. Instead of dealing with the very real threat of the juvenile, because "it's too hard *insert whiny voice*" I pretend like the real threat is not an issue and look the other way and beat on the drunk to make myself feel better.

Actually, I agree with you entirely!

We should have bombed the kreplock (whatever that is) out of Iran long LONG ago,.. much before we dealt with Iraq, which would have waited for us to stomp it.

But,.. you can't trust "weenies" like the present crop of Republicans to be MEN about things, can you?


For me, I would go for the evil juvenile first. The last thing I want to do with that kid is turn my back on him and get involved in a long drawn out fight that will leave me weak, bloodied and exposed.

Hear hear..!!

Actually, I agree with you entirely!

We should have bombed the kreplock (whatever that is) out of Iran long LONG ago,.. much before we dealt with Iraq, which would have waited for us to stomp it.

But,.. you can't trust "weenies" like the present crop of Republicans to be MEN about things, can you?



Hear hear..!!

What are you trying to prove? That you know how to use the internet. You're not impressing anyone.

What are you trying to prove? That you know how to use the internet. You're not impressing anyone.

is that ikea boy, back again?