Fox McCloud
05-29-2008, 10:34 AM
I was having a conversation with a few people (most are neo-conservatives, or some weird hybrid of liberal+conservative...and not the good kind of hybrid that results in one being a Libertarian either).
Anyway, one of these persons actually had the audacity to state that he thought that the Revolutionary War was not a "just war", his comment was:
Honestly, I don't think the Revolutionary war was actually justified. The King of England had authority over his subjects, even colonists. Shoot, he sent colonists there to begin with! While they were still English citizens, they should have listened to him. Yes, he made some bad choices, but seriously, we went to war over taxes, which the king was within his rights to levy.
I pointed out that he levied taxes at the colonists expense, and that taxation without representation was a form of tyranny.
Either way he came back with
I have read the Declaration of Independence. The point is that the king was acting within his rights as a king, and I don't think bloodshed is necessary over economic trouble. The king had legal authority, and Americans rebelled, why? Greed. They wanted money. They didn't like taxes. So, let's have a lot of folks get killed! . . . You don't seem to have a problem with the treason of the Revolutionary War. Why, then, with this one [The War in Iraq]?
Anyway, I pointed out that it was not merely just over taxes, and there was nothing wrong with wanting more money, provided it was within legal bounds (ie: not via coercion). I then pointed out that it wasn't *just* over taxes, but other matters as well, mainly because the King acted one way one time, then turned his back on them and coercively extracted wealth from them the next.
Either way, I don't feel my reply is as good as it could be; anyone else like to add a couple extra cents?
pinkmandy
05-29-2008, 11:49 PM
Ask him what his definition of a justified war is. In his worldview, are people never supposed to fight to free themselves from tyranny? Should we just let Bush be President indefinitely? He could legally impose martial law that allows that. Is that okay? It may be if he's a neocon. How about Obama? Why even bother voting? Should people have no say in how they are governed? Does your friend realize that the higher taxes were a result of the King raising money to pay off war debt? That concerns by Americans over the taxes were disregarded? As was representation?
Does your friend believe in freedom? If so, how does one become free?
And please, how does this compare to Iraq? I must know. Last time I checked we weren't in Iraq fighting for our freedom. Money Masters is a good movie for your friend. He can watch it on Dirk's site, www.trueworldhistory.info
Mini-Me
05-30-2008, 12:05 AM
So your buddy believes that the King had higher claim to his subjects' lives than they did?
Lovely.
+1
Yongrel hit the nail on the head...this is the crux of the argument.
Furthermore, the colonists did not wage war on England. They merely declared their independence. If they could have done this without having to fight for their lives against the most powerful empire in the world, I'm pretty certain they would have done so. The king of England threw a hissy fit and waged war against the colonists out of HIS greed, because he wanted to continue stealing what did not rightly belong to him and continue ruling over people who did not wish to be ruled over (and after all, government derives its just power to govern, NOT to rule btw, exclusively through the consent of the governed).
Fox McCloud
05-30-2008, 01:28 AM
this is a largely Christian forums, and sadly, he takes on the idea that any authority figure (or just about any) is set up by God, and therefore, must be obeyed.
Now, I'd prefer this not to turn into a Christian bashing thread, as I myself am a believer in Christ....THAT said, I think Scripture is being taken out of context to be used to support these ideas (Romans 13 is within the context that the government is good, just, and honorable to begin with...and besides, the chapter verse thing in the Bible was not originally in the Scripture, so false division can be created....how interesting it is that the verse preceding Romans 13 is "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.").
So anyway, I stirred up a bees nest by stating that the last war I supported was the war for independence, upon which he went on to ramble that WWI, WWII, and many other wars needed us in them because it was our duty to topple Hitler/prevent the Japanese from doing what they did, etc....I pointed out that Colonel House, Wilson, Churchill, and a few others basically manipulated WWI into play then nearly guaranteed that the Lusitania would be sunk...then I pointed out the many things about WWII, then pointed him to www.jbs.org/nod/58
He didn't even bother to discredit these, he simply continued on what Japan, Germany, and the likes did...I pointed out about the Civil war, the Gulf War, etc, but all were discounted for the same, exact reasons.
anyway, back to the war on Independence; he claimed it was in the King's right to levy the tax....what didn't help matters was some guy from the UK came up and stated that taxes were much higher in the UK than in America, so this just further fueled the "America went to war because of taxes" thing, though he did admit the tax in America was to pay for a war with France...I could point out this folly, but it'd be of no consequence since the group is pro-war to begin with (for the most part).
overall, I'm this [ ] close to just "closing up shop", dropping the whole matter, and moving on.
Mini-Me
05-30-2008, 05:34 AM
this is a largely Christian forums, and sadly, he takes on the idea that any authority figure (or just about any) is set up by God, and therefore, must be obeyed.
I think you might have hit a brick wall here. Ordinary liberals and neocons think they believe in freedom, but they've been misled their whole lives about what freedom means. Essentially, they've been tricked into supporting something entirely different and thinking subservience is freedom. However, someone with that much of an authoritarian outlook on life seems to be ideologically opposed to freedom altogether. He might be a lost cause...on the bright side, there's a chance that he's just 15 years old and he'll eventually grow out of such naive ideas. ;)
Still, if you want to, you could try arguing from the standpoint that all human beings are created equal in terms of rights and basic human dignity. Sure, some people are smarter, faster, stronger, prettier, etc., but nobody is "better" than anybody else in the sense that they inherently deserve power over others. We are all equals (under God or however you want to look at it), which means that we cannot be legitimately born into slavery or subservience to any human master. At the most basic level, the only reasons we even need government are to:
Protect us from invading forces and/or speak with large collective groups/threats on behalf of the populace (with the moral authority of the people as a whole)
Establish a concrete and enforceable standard (and a mediator) for solving disputes between equals and giving recourse to people who are wronged by others (without everything degenerating into a murderous bloodbath of revenge or mob justice).As such, government is not some preexisting natural entity that has or deserves rights. Rather, it's a synthetic entity cooperatively established by individuals (who do have rights) who agree that it's in everyone's best interests to establish an institution that will protect their rights (from each other, basically). Legitimate government is created to serve the people, not to rule them! Furthermore, government is inherently a tradeoff - people give up some level of freedom for the security/promise that the rest cannot be easily stolen from them by others.*
In any case, no government - no matter who runs it - has the moral authority to do anything beyond what the people as a whole consent for it to do. Furthermore, even if the majority consents to violations of rights, it STILL doesn't have that moral authority (which is why our forefathers established a Republic that is supposed to recognize this).
If all human beings are inherently equals, how could it possibly be any other way? By what justification can any government (or government official) have the moral authority to exist and govern, if not by the consent of the people, each of whom are equals with any government official appointed/elected to serve them?
Whether he realizes it or not, the guy from the other forum seems to be arguing from the standpoint that we do not all have equal rights, and that some people are "chosen by God" or inherently more deserving than others, even from birth (e.g. justifying monarchy). So, let's examine that position...
Are authority figures set up by God? Well...I hope not, and here's why: Most rulers throughout history have been selfish despots. If God's the one that gives these rulers some kind of "mandate of heaven," that says much more about God than it does about the rulers themselves. In the end, any logical person aware of human history has to conclude one of three things:
a.) Rulers and authority figures do not have any mandate of heaven whatsoever, meaning God is either noninterventionist or nonexistent (or only intervenes in other ways, such as when he sent Shigeru Miyamoto and Ron Paul down for the good of all mankind)
b.) God sets up rulers for mysterious reasons, such as to test us and strengthen us, but this doesn't mean the ruler necessarily derives moral authority from God - on the contrary, the whole point of the exercise very well may be to help us recognize tyranny and gather the courage and strength to throw it off.
c.) God does intend to confer moral authority onto tyrants, indicating that God is a cruel and unjust bastard with a weaker moral compass than the average human being. Such a God is more deserving of contempt than worship, and the rulers still do not inherently deserve their power.
As a Christian, it seems the guy on those forums will be forced to accept either scenario a or b (or stick his head in the sand), because scenario c doesn't exactly mesh very well with the concept of a just and loving God. If a just God set up authority figures, every leader would be like Ron Paul, our very own miniature, beardless Gandalf. :)
Personally, I'm thinking scenario a is the most likely, followed by scenario b. Human beings come to power for many reasons - some are just "lucky" and are born into it. Others come to power through fear, intimidation, and conquest. In the modern era, most come to power by trading favors with other powerful people (who have their own selfish agendas) and manipulating public opinion. The "mandate of heaven" ideology could be applied to any of the above scenarios, but it seems much more likely that people ascend to power (or inherit it) for entirely earthly reasons. In reality, the very concept of the mandate of heaven was created by tyrants for the benefit of tyrants. If your people will not approve of you any other way, you have to manipulate them into thinking you're justified by some divine power - how very convenient for those who have no other leg to stand on! However, I'm very shocked and saddened that people even today hold such antiquated ideas...is he by any chance also an adherent to the "just world" fallacy?
Now, I'd prefer this not to turn into a Christian bashing thread, as I myself am a believer in Christ....THAT said, I think Scripture is being taken out of context to be used to support these ideas (Romans 13 is within the context that the government is good, just, and honorable to begin with...and besides, the chapter verse thing in the Bible was not originally in the Scripture, so false division can be created....how interesting it is that the verse preceding Romans 13 is "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.").
So anyway, I stirred up a bees nest by stating that the last war I supported was the war for independence, upon which he went on to ramble that WWI, WWII, and many other wars needed us in them because it was our duty to topple Hitler/prevent the Japanese from doing what they did, etc....I pointed out that Colonel House, Wilson, Churchill, and a few others basically manipulated WWI into play then nearly guaranteed that the Lusitania would be sunk...then I pointed out the many things about WWII, then pointed him to www.jbs.org/nod/58 (http://www.jbs.org/nod/58)
He didn't even bother to discredit these, he simply continued on what Japan, Germany, and the likes did...I pointed out about the Civil war, the Gulf War, etc, but all were discounted for the same, exact reasons.
anyway, back to the war on Independence; he claimed it was in the King's right to levy the tax....what didn't help matters was some guy from the UK came up and stated that taxes were much higher in the UK than in America, so this just further fueled the "America went to war because of taxes" thing, though he did admit the tax in America was to pay for a war with France...I could point out this folly, but it'd be of no consequence since the group is pro-war to begin with (for the most part).
overall, I'm this [ ] close to just "closing up shop", dropping the whole matter, and moving on.
I'll disregard the discussion about other wars, since that's not really relevant to the justification of the Revolutionary War...but actually, I could very well argue that the Revolutionary War was an unjust war of aggression, on the king's part. Let me give an analogy in the form of a narrative:
____A long time ago, the king of England had a wife, and her name was America. He frequently beat her and occasionally raped her. Since he'd never done an honest day's work his whole life and frankly considered it below him, he also took a bit out of her paycheck on a regular basis. That kept him out of sleeveless wife beaters and helped to pay for the bare essentials like luxurious robes and expensive furniture. Sure, he did a few nice things for her every now and then, but on the whole, it was a pretty one-sided relationship.
____Over time, America began to forget why she was even married to the king - for all she could remember, she didn't even marry him by choice but was just kind of stuck with him from birth. As time dragged on, America became quite unhappy with her relationship with the king, and she occasionally slapped him when he was being particularly unruly. Unfortunately, that usually meant she was in for a chokehold.
____One day in the summer of 1776, America said to her husband, "I've had enough of the abuse, and I'm leaving you."
____As she turned around to leave for good, the king became enraged. Incredulous, he screamed, "How dare you ever even THINK about leaving me! I'll teach you a lesson you'll never forget!" The king slowly approached America with every intention of beating her within an inch of her life and causing irreparable bodily harm. With a weapon in hand big enough to compensate for his royally small penis, he felt completely invincible and even more manly than OJ Simpson.
____Little did he know though, America wasn't the same passive, docile wife she used to be - despite her small physique, she was fully willing to defend herself and fight back if it came to it. One way or another, she knew her time as a battered spouse had come to an end, even if it meant her death. Using the king's overconfidence to her advantage, she managed to dodge most of his blows and strike back hard enough to keep him at bay. Staggering backwards, the king howled, "SCREW THIS!...I'll just go beat my other wife and take HER money!" From that point on, the king never again bothered America (except for a few hit and runs). Instead, he focused on raping his other wife Britain day in and day out. Sadly, Britain suffered many more years of abuse before standing up for herself, and she never made quite the uncompromising stand that America did.
____Hundreds of years later, one of America's snot-nosed children said on an online forum, "You know, I think it was totally uncalled for when Mom started that fight and beat up the king. He was the man of the house, which obviously means he had a God-given right to do whatever he wanted. Like Rudy Giuliani said, freedom comes from authority!"
____Another of America's children replied, "WTF? Are you kidding me? Are you even serious? The king was a damn wife-beater! Mom gave him plenty of chances, and when she finally left, he was practically about to kill her - and you're saying she had no right to defend herself? What kind of blame the victim game are you playing?!?"
____Without warning, one of Britain's children, accustomed to a lifetime of sharp blows to the head and suffering dearly for it, piped up, "Oh, come on...America didn't have it THAT badly - the king was WAY more abusive with my mom than yours! He definitely stole more of her paycheck, and I know that for a fact! If she could put up with it, that logically means your mom should have also, the ungrateful wench!"
____The second of America's children, banging his head against the wall in frustration, retorted, "...no, it doesn't. Both of our moms had every right to leave that asshole and defend themselves against further beatings. Who had it worse is irrelevant. Are you seriously dim-witted enough to argue that just because misery loves company, misery deserves company too?"
____However, the other two children were too busy admiring John McCain's lecherous lizard-grin and raging boner for war and destruction to pay any attention whatsoever. Sadly, despite their disapproval of America's actions when she was acting fully of her own accord, they lauded her recent escapades...after her brain functions were completely hijacked by cancer.
~FIN~*To go off on a libertarian-esque tangent and elaborate on a comment above:
Absolutely everything government does requires some violation of people's natural rights, and it's ultimately up to the people to determine how much liberty they're willing to concede. Optimally, an intelligent population will only allow the government to encroach upon one right, and only to a minimal degree - that of property, which the government takes through taxation. This gives the government the means to exist and carry out its primary duty, which is to protect individual life, liberty, and property (preferably in the order: liberty, life, property, since liberty seems to be the first thing sacrificed to "keep us safe" :rolleyes:). A stupid population will allow the government to do one or more of the following:
Trample individual liberty under the pretense of protecting life (at the expense of all else)
Encroach upon other rights or individual liberty for any other reason
Expand to take on other responsibilities, which is only possible through unnecessary and excessive violation of property rights (taxation)
Fox McCloud
05-31-2008, 04:43 PM
Fox, do you really not support our involvement in World War 2? Or our retaliation against the Barbary Pirates?
WWII is a "darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario"; I personally believe FDR intentionally provoked the Japanese into attacking, then allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, just to get us into the war: www.jbs.org/node/58 There's also some speculation as to the authenticity of the supposed letter/telegram that Hitler was going to invade the USA.....so, I have mixed feelings, but ultimately, I think it could have been avoided if WWI never happened.
as for the Barbary Pirates? It was in our national security interests, and it was handled in the most effective and Constitutional way, therefore I support it (as I support the hunt for Osama, but not the war in Afghanistan).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.