|
|
|
|
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 51 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 1:56:43 PM | if everybody agreed on rights there would be no reason for law
Everybody (everybody that's rational) agreeing on rights IS the law!
eh. ok. no reason for law, everybody agreeing. whatever. never happen so moot.
law itself is based on the recognition that everybody cannot agree on what is a right and what is not
False.
Let's look at the primary definition of a law; the free online dictionary defines it as: "A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority."
agreed. so what's false in my statement based on this definition of law. in the US law is established by authority. congress has been authorized to impose law.
Natural law (upon which all true law is based) does not recognize authority except by consent to submission, so authority is out if it refers to the authority of men or gods (they are your equals under law unless you consent to submit).
the rub again is, everybody doesn't agree on what natural law is. and we the people have consented to submit to authority. we say so in the constitution which authorises congress to impose laws.
Custom is also out, as customs may change with awareness (slavery was always wrong, but it was customary, so it was long considered "lawful"; that only meant that our interpretation of the law was erroneous, not that the law had really changed).
and yet slavery was lawful until it was outlawed.
The only remaining thing is agreement. To be a truly just law, it should have the agreement of every moral agent within human society. Since everyone agrees that murder is wrong, it is not lawful to murder.
everybody does not agree that murder is wrong. in saudi arabia it is not considered wrong for a husband to murder a family member if he dishonors the family. in the US we don't even agree on what murder is. prochoice advocates do not consider abortion to be murder. the right to lifers do believe it's murder. it took law in the form of roe v wade to settle the arguement.
Granted that there have been many "laws" that have permitted murder, but these were unjust and as they were unjust they were not true law, because the purpose of true law is justice.
there again, death penalty advocates consider execution to be just and not murder. death penalty opponents see it as unjust murder.
i was saying that if everyone DID live according to the law the ladies house would never be broken into
If you consider the statutes as law, then you can't make that statement until you've read through all the statutes as they currently stand and made the determination that legislators didn't legislate the government the "right" to break into her house (There are likely many such pieces of legislation -- Some, pertaining to suspicion of terrorism, or drugs, etc. probably do give them that "right")
is that your arguement? ok you don't see that i was simply providing an example to the lady regarding god and law. so how's this. never will everyone live according to the law and the ladies house will likely be broken into. that suit you? jeez man. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 2:01:12 PM | Hi H2O
You wrote:
"I'll directly challenge the quality of a government tainted by religious interjection like the USA.
I personally think the founders did a lousy job writing the first amendment in the USA,
and much of it should be changed for 21st century society."
Could you please at least tell me where religious interjection has happened in the USA?
If you think that the founders did a lousy job of writing the first amendment, what about it is "lousy"?
Paul K | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 53 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 2:17:10 PM | I'll directly challenge the quality of a government tainted by religious interjection like the USA.
as is your right.
I personally think the founders did a lousy job writing the first amendment in the USA,
and much of it should be changed for 21st century society.
another right you have. why don't you reword it and begin the amendment process. tell you what. post here how you think it should read and if i and others agree you've begun the process. either way, i enjoy discussing what's right and wrong with our constitution. after all, it's been amended twenty seven times. i have a couple of new amendents i'd like to see but you go first. how do you think the first amendment should read today? or if you'd prefer, tell me what you think is wrong with the present wording?
Rights exist only because a group has power and the individuals submit.
Management via fear works well up to a point - eventually some take the risk of reprisal
you could put it that way. i wouldn't. i like to think of it as when we are born we have every right to do anything we want. we quickly learn that if we excercise certain rights, authority will impose consequences. our first cantact with authority being our parents. governments also limit what rights we can excercise. in the US, we the people wrote a constitution that says some rights cannot be messed with. the first amendment puts laws off limits that would restrict free speach, religion, the press and assembly. other rights that cannot be messed with are addressed in other parts of the constitution. so yes you are correct, rights that we can exercise freely exist in every country on the planet only because the individuals submit to the group in power. we the people wrote a constitution and now submit to the authority of the government. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 4:08:24 PM |
so what's false in my statement based on this definition of law. in the US law is established by authority. congress has been authorized to impose law.
The conflict is that law is established by agreement (by that I mean the agreement of all, not a democratic majority). You contended that laws were passed because people couldn't generally agree on right & wrong. Perhaps your confusion arises from your misapprehension that Congress imposes law. Actually it is the judiciary that imposes law. Congress can only enact statutes, which are not laws, but are by definition only rules and regulations given the force of law within a society. They are often called statutory "laws" but that is a deliberate part of the deception that everybody seems to have fallen for. Statutes are a function of government and have no lawful hold over anyone who withdraws the consent to be governed. Real laws don't allow you to "opt out" because they are a function of human society itself, not of its government. If you try to opt out of law itself, and then break it and get caught, you'll find the argument that you aren't subject to the jurisdiction of law doesn't carry any weight. For instance, murdering someone in a society puts you under tha society's jurisdiction, whether or not you are a citizen of that society.
everybody doesn't agree on what natural law is. and we the people have consented to submit to authority. we say so in the constitution which authorises congress to impose laws.
Natural law is simply our innate sense of what is right, wrong, fair and unfair. Have you ever met anyone rational who thinks murder, theft, or fraud is lawful? If a crime is committed and a suspect arrested, he is "tried" by a jury of twelve reasonable men/women who decide whether or not the accused is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Have they memorized all the law books? No; they are relying on what their hearts tell them after impartially weighing the evidence presented. A jury is a great example of natural law at work.
and yet slavery was lawful until it was outlawed.
That was my point. People can use custom and precedent to perpetuate unjust laws. Even Natural law can be misinterpreted to serve selfish ends. It was an unjust law and therefore not really lawful. I wonder how many slaves might have been spared if the precedents on which judges are supposed to rely (if they can) had never been written down for reference? How long would slavery have lasted if the philosophical issue of its rightness/wrongness had been raised at every trial? I suggest that without the reinforcement of custom and precedent, it wouldn't have lasted too long.
in saudi arabia it is not considered wrong for a husband to murder a family member if he dishonors the family
That is only a justification for murder arising from erroneous interpretation of "God's Law" Such laws are enforced by the illegitimate "might makes right" principle of a tyranny. Don't confuse that with real law, which is fair and rational. Didn't I already say that part of my case against written law is just this sort of crap? In any event, Saudi Arabia (by that I mean the Saudi royal family) doesn't abide by natural law and are often at odds with it, so their laws may be "legal" but they are anything but lawful.
in the US we don't even agree on what murder is. prochoice advocates do not consider abortion to be murder
At one time a man was dead when he stopped breathing. Today we know better and laws regarding point of death have changed to reflect that. The same will likely be true of at what point human life begins, which up until now (in common law countries) has been the point of full expulsion from the mother. Before that, the fetus is not considered in law to be a human life, so it can't be murdered.
death penalty advocates consider execution to be just and not murder. death penalty opponents see it as unjust murder.
Natural law allows the discretion here, as it would only assert that a murderer loses his right to life and may be justly killed. It does not prescribe the death penalty itself, only its legitimacy. Whether or not it is used is at the discretion of the society. I would suggest that capital punishment would be unjust unless the accused were guilty not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond ALL doubt (i.e. certainty=100%)
so how's this. never will everyone live according to the law and the ladies house will likely be broken into. that suit you? jeez man.
Nah...That doesn't cut it either. The point I was trying to make was that government legislation is not to be trusted to preserve our rights, but actually works to take them away, because governments have become so corrupt, it will probably take another american-style revolution to straighten out the mess. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 55 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 4:42:24 PM | """"Could you please at least tell me where religious interjection has happened in the USA? """
Are you deaf & blind ? - George W. Bush is only THE greatest christian crusader of recent times
Documentary shows how we came to have a president who believes,
that "he and his country have a special relationship with God" -- New York Times
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7050135304712574299#
Separation of church and state, only for those with their head in the sand like an ostrich
http://tinyurl.com/m2rcjx
George W Bush was a buffoon and an idiot ---especially when mixing religion into government
Google -- With God on Our Side: George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 56 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 5:20:53 PM |
Are you deaf & blind ?
just curious. do you ever discuss issues without the personal enuendo? these slights are really not an effective debate tactic you know. "are you blind" and "head in sand" crap spewing doesn't in the least present your point as superior to others. you won't succeed in raising yourself on high by demeaning others. pulling them down does not lift you up. indeed, you lose status in some minds. i didn't even read past "are you blind?" as my experience tells me that people who use such schoolyard bullying really have little to contribute that i'd be interested in. doubt many others bother either. so i hope you didn't spend mucht time and effort on it. i agree with much that you say but i don't care for how you say it so your message doesn't get through. why don't you say it like you're having fun like most here? it is only a dating site you know? | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 57 | |
| |
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 58 | |
| |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 5:51:18 PM | | hi... never say never.... human laws are more often tainted than not therefore they never really apply to everyone, Divine Laws Rule The Universe and everyone and everything is subject to Them.. earth is a perfect example of what can happen out of The Realm of Divine Law and this too shall pass.... blessings | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 60 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 9:26:29 PM | ^^^Do the aliens created by God get to kick everyone in the a.s.s.
when they escort all of us off the planet as food for their pets
--because Lord knows the aliens were here first .
I'm real curious about my Rights in the infinite interstellar multi-universe that exists
Most religious stuff starts because someone claims they were somewhere first
--a little like the American Indians vs Everyone else -- what about their Gods and their Rights ?
..oh yeah, we powerfully trampled all over them in the name of our constitution and ""inalienable rights"
--or were the American Indians the aliens who had no rights ?.....hmmmmm | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 11:44:09 PM |
we the people wrote a constitution and now submit to the authority of the government.
Your sentiment seems right, but is flawed in the sense that (in the US) people were born long after the constitution was written and MUST (individually) consent to allow the government to have any authority over them (The authority of government comes from the people...Not the people of 200 years ago, but the people living today). If you have never taken an oath of allegiance (either verbally or in writing, by claiming citizenship), the government has NO authority over you because you haven't consented to it. If you are a US citizen, you have consented to give them authority over you (probably when you applied for a social security card). BUT are you aware that it is citizenship in a commercial corporation not even controlled by the american people and NOT the country that was formed by the American revolution? If you didn't know that, you have been bamboozled by the international bankers. Both the USA and Canada (and many other countries) are corporations listed with the SEC & Dun & Bradstreet, so citizenship in them is about the same as being an employee at Wal-Mart. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 5:29:43 AM | RE Msg: 46 by HO2:
Religion played a MAJOR role in the actions of George W. Bush - it's a well documented fact But there is no requirement in Xianity to control Iraq, or Afghanistan. There were thefts of BILLIONS from the money of the Iraqi people that was allocated for the rebuilding of Iraq that was controlled by the US.AFAIK, Xianity is totally against theft, as one of the 10 Commandments. So I really don't see how this can be argued.
However, what CAN be argued, is that a lot of un-Xian acts were justified on the basis of "national security", and many of those acts of America, which were justified by reason of "national security", was additionally justified by arguments that those acts were "G-d's will". Blaming your actions on G-d, doesn't mean G-d said you could do it, especially when your source of G-d's will, clearly says you can't do those things.
Mom: Who stole the cookies?
Son: G-d told me to.
Mom: No, G-d didn't. G-d told you to NOT steal. Now stop telling porky pies.
RE Msg: 51 by HO2:
Religion has a massive bearing on governmental laws and Rights in the USA along with other countries The claim of religious intervention in government is claimed far more strongly than in other countries. If you said this about the UK, us Brits would laugh.
RE Msg: 56 by JustDukky:
Have you ever met anyone rational who thinks murder, theft, or fraud is lawful? Yes. Lots of people say they are getting ripped off big business by over-inflated prices, and so fraud of big business is just returning stolen money from the rich to the poor. Such an argument is part of the justification for downloading music and films without paying for it. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 6:35:12 AM | | hi... message 62...in all the universe we are the only planet in rebellion so God's other worlds are not coming here to get us for food for their dogs... muscle milk may turn people into raging whiny somewhat delusional babies but that is only what I think... blessings | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 8:05:37 AM |
Lots of people say they are getting ripped off big business by over-inflated prices, and so fraud of big business is just returning stolen money from the rich to the poor. Such an argument is part of the justification for downloading music and films without paying for it.
People ARE being ripped off by big corporations (which are legal fictions. NOT natural living entities). Under natural law, you can't defraud a corporation because it is only a document (intended to be a servant of men), not a living being. It has no intellect and therefore has no right to own intellectual property. Commerce (which is properly defined as buying AND selling) itself is incompatible with natural law, as one is only entitled to trade one's property (buy OR sell), not to profit by trade (i.e. middlemen are a no-no). Corporations therefore would not be allowed to profit and could only mark up the extent of their costs (as a VAR). Most commercial law (which is based on Roman merchant law) is not lawful under natural law. One need only look into his heart to see the injustice of the commerce we see today, with banks (corporations) who have ripped off the people of various nations forcing those same people they stole from to pay for the crimes committed against them (crimes that they falsely claim to be "incompetence" arising from greed). Natural law would not limit the liability of corporations, but would place unlimited liability in the hands of the people behind the corporations (which would be the shareholders, who would in turn make the boards liable for corporate actions)
Most people are unaware that their government is only a corporation and that their "citizenship" really means they are an "employee" of that government, which (in most cases) has been defrauding them out of the fruits of their labour since they first started paying "income tax.", but the fraud is so unbelieveable that people quite literally can't believe it and launch into a sense of denial, which allows the fraud to continue year after year.
IMHO we need a lot more "Robin Hoods" to try to balance the scales of natural justice. Some ropes wouldn't hurt either! | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 8:17:36 AM |
Most people are unaware that their government is only a corporation and that their "citizenship" really means they are an "employee" of that government, which (in most cases) has been defrauding them out of the fruits of their labour since they first started paying "income tax.", but the fraud is so unbelieveable that people quite literally can't believe it and launch into a sense of denial, which allows the fraud to continue year after year.
I have no clue what you mean by "natural law"? You have no inalienable rights just for being born. None whatsoever. Nature is indifferent to sufferring. We have systems of Government and Law that enable us all to get on together, more or less protecting the weak against the strong (to an extent). | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 9:52:09 AM |
I have no clue what you mean by "natural law"?
Well, the easiest way to explain it might be "unwritten law based on rational reasoning of right/wrong and an innate sense of fairness." I like to think of it as the law of the rational and compassionate human heart, which by it's very nature craves fairness in an unfair world (nature). Natural law seeks to "correct" the seeming injustice of nature itself by levelling the playing field wherever possible.
Don't get natural law confused with the laws of nature (which are unreasoning and "unfair"). Natural law is NOT the law of the jungle, but may have its roots there, as I believe it has existed for as long as people have reasoned and pondered what is or isn't "just." | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 67 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 9:55:19 AM | People seem to think they have Rights--like society owes them something.
If that person contributes to the society, like paying taxes, then society gives them something back.
I agree completely with RobinsonUK, just because you exist doesn't automatically entitle people to stuff.
Look around at a third world country and the children born into poverty, filth, squalor.
Nature doesn't exactly shove food, shelter, protection at them now..does it ?
That's why I consistently come back to primate social structure - each member contributes
and in return gets something for their actions, some protection, food, resources, etc.
The primates only have Rights as long as the social fabric allows the animal to have them.
To a certain degree they even help feed and protect elders, call it charity, good will, etc.
Primates don't exactly operate under morality codes, they don't worship gods, etc.
| |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 68 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 11:02:42 AM | Your sentiment seems right, but is flawed in the sense that (in the US) people were born long after the constitution was written and MUST (individually) consent to allow the government to have any authority over them (The authority of government comes from the people...Not the people of 200 years ago, but the people living today). If you have never taken an oath of allegiance (either verbally or in writing, by claiming citizenship), the government has NO authority over you because you haven't consented to it. If you are a US citizen, you have consented to give them authority over you (probably when you applied for a social security card). BUT are you aware that it is citizenship in a commercial corporation not even controlled by the american people and NOT the country that was formed by the American revolution? If you didn't know that, you have been bamboozled by the international bankers. Both the USA and Canada (and many other countries) are corporations listed with the SEC & Dun & Bradstreet, so citizenship in them is about the same as being an employee at Wal-Mart.
absurd. and extremely unfair as well to even consider that i may have been bamboozled by anything or anybody. do you always attempt to discredit people so in an attempt to make your point? it never does work you know but this thread in particular sure seems abundant with such unnessesary and highly inefective debate tactics. jeez.
we consent to authority every day that we chose to remain in america and not relinguish our citizenship which you have ever right to do if you so chose. likewise when you step on foreign soil you submit to the autority of that government. were you to be shanghaied you would not have submitted to authority. so do you feel you've been shanghaied or do you choose to remain an american and live in america?
the framers did an excellent job imo writing a constitution that is extremely flexible. they knew that times would change. hell it's been amended twenty seven times has it not? if there is a right that you think you are missing out on that the framers didn't think about then excercise your right as a citizen and propose the twenty eight amendment to you congressman. better yet, flood every elected or appointed official you can think of with the same email. not difficult in this day and age no? i have a few ideas for amending the constitution myself.
your most absurd suggestion that the usa or any other country can be likened to walmart may be what you think of your country but i could not agree less so with that in mind i'll not even begin to address such nonsense. we'd likely speak entirely different languages. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 11:42:32 AM |
Well, the easiest way to explain it might be "unwritten law based on rational reasoning of right/wrong and an innate sense of fairness." I like to think of it as the law of the rational and compassionate human heart, which by it's very nature craves fairness in an unfair world (nature). Natural law seeks to "correct" the seeming injustice of nature itself by levelling the playing field wherever possible.
This was so beautifully put, that I think it bears repeating.
Governments, corporations, and, I will say it, religion are predominantly institutions, which are constructs of the human mind. These institutions are based on competition of resources and comparative value, which creates a "power over dynamic". In this power over structure, the institutions have the power, and the people running them (we will call them Oliver) and the institutions no longer become a servant of the people who set them up, but rather a tool for enslavement (enslavement is too strong of a word, but I couldn't think of a better one).
Negate competition for resources and comparative value, and you have room for natural law.
People seem to think they have Rights--like society owes them something.
There is a difference between rights and entitlement, if seen philosophically. Which frequently happens when seen through the lens of legality. "Natural Rights" are based upon ideals, while "entitled rights" are generally based upon idealized wrong-doing. "You did me wrong so you owe me".
And let us not forget that the American Revolution happened, (thus leading to creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) because a bunch rich white guys didn't want to pay their taxes (to Oliver). | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 11:57:44 AM |
And let us not forget that the American Revolution happened, (thus leading to creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) because a bunch rich white guys didn't want to pay their taxes (to Oliver).
The War of American Independence was not solely a tax issue. It was more based on the fact that the Colonial American's greviencies weren't being redressed by Parliement. That they were being treated not as free English Subjects and property owners but, as Fedual Serfs. It was approxiamately 10 years of negoitiation before any shots were fired in anger. You also neglect that the English king was going place the Colonies under Martial Law and garrison troops in the private homes of the Americans. If it had any economic implication it was that the Americans (freemen) did not wish to become Economic Slaves to the Crown. If you want I can go further. But I am going to have to call BS on the last statement.
Futhermore, the rights of humanity are given by a Creator therefore can not be given nor taken away by any Government or instution. I could continue to argue that governments are in a Hobbsian sense are necessary to protect our liberites, and should be used as judgically as possiable. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 71 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 12:04:13 PM |
And let us not forget that the American Revolution happened, (thus leading to creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) because a bunch rich white guys didn't want to pay their taxes (to Oliver).
hmmmmm, seems to me the declaration first, then the war in which far more poor guys fought and died than rich guys and finally a constitution written by some guys during the constitutional convention many of whom were far from rich even in their day. and who's oliver? thought george collected taxes back then. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 12:09:39 PM | | The discussion of "rights" evolved in the historical context of specific groups of people being systematically & intentionally stripped of their rights and subjected to terrorism. Go read about the Honea Path massacre that happened when union organizers tried to organize cotton mill workers. I'd submit that workers have a right to organize. People of non-white-European descent have a right to be free from systematic terrorism. The handicapped should have access to public buildings in any society that is decent. At one time in the not too recent past, all those rights were trampled on in the country that justified its own rebellion against legal authority by declaring "All men are created equal." | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 12:20:50 PM | ^^^^Agreed as would the writers of the Bill of Rights, section 4 of the 1st Admendent states the people that the right to assemble to redress greviences to the Government. In America Under ADA (Americans with Disablities Act 93) all buildings must be built to be hanidcapped accessiable.
However as far as Collective Bargining, there has been a lot of blood shed on both sides over the years. My opinion on Unions is as follows: It can be a force for both good and ill it depends on use and economic circumstance.
Cromwell, was long Dead by the time King George the III (monarch of England durring the War of Independence) Cromwell, is important in his establishment of modern Parliment. He fought King James the I, at the turn of the 18th century. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 12:35:37 PM | Groooaaannn
Good to see you back in the forums, Gadge.
And of course, you are going to argue with me... 
The War of American Independence was not solely a tax issue.
You are correct. It was mostly a tax issue. Hence the rallying cry, "No taxation without representation!"
That they were being treated not as free English Subjects and property owners but, as Fedual Serfs.
Not quite true, not quite true. Feudal serfdom is completely different. Serfs were bound by the land, (they couldn't leave, or the would be considered "outlaws", and all of the fruits of their labor was taken by sovereignty, and what they received was a trickle down affect. This did not happen in the States, because the States were overseas, and what happened here is closer to Roman's rule over Great Britain.
You also neglect that the English king was going place the Colonies under Martial Law and garrison troops in the private homes of the Americans.
Because of non-compliance, mostly centered around money.
But I am going to have to call BS on the last statement.
Then I call BS too. Strawman argument.
Go read up on John Locke...
| |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 1:02:44 PM |
Not quite true, not quite true. Feudal serfdom is completely different. Serfs were bound by the land, (they couldn't leave, or the would be considered "outlaws", and all of the fruits of their labor was taken by sovereignty, and what they received was a trickle down affect. This did not happen in the States, because the States were overseas, and what happened here is closer to Roman's rule over Great Britain.
Which is exactly the point that I was making that Mad King George was trying to establish a Fedual system here in the States. Where all the fruits of labor would be solely owned by the Crown and those that left the lands would become outlaws. I think John Hancock made the case much more eloquently then I could ever attempt to make.
As far as reviewing Locke, you know I'm more a Hobbisan but I will pull my copy of his writings off the bookcase.
Strawman that wasn't nice. I was saying I know you know better.
You are correct. It was mostly a tax issue. Hence the rallying cry, "No taxation without representation!"
I disagree about it being mostly a money issue. It was more a representation issue. So we can go to the other great Slogan of the time, and flag that I fly from time to time: "Don't tread on Me!" You see that the Americans weren't included in any of the decision that were going to impact their lives. And they were pay a Disproporationate burden of English War Debits. If I'm not mistaken the French and Indian War was an extention of the 30 years war with the French. I do know that it ran concurrently with a English/French war in the European thearter. There are so many. As a matter of fact that durring the First Contential Congress there was furious debate in which to continue to negotiate, send representives to the Crown or to declare Independence. It is here where John Hancock gave the speach I mentioned earlier. It was not mere enforcement of tax law, which Paliement often repealed; but subsugation, and servitude.
Diva, though you know I may disagree with you I still like you, and I've missed you too. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
