Search results

Because what the people want in this case is unreasonable. They desired a return to a status quo of benign neglect, something that could not realistically happen. They wanted representation in parliament, something that 1) would not have appeased them because a single vote would mean nothing and...

How? Right. That's why it's important to separate them and treat them accordingly when we're dealing with moral justification for action. The Emperor gets his authority from God, so if there's a difference of opinion between the two, you side with God. But otherwise, you serve the Emperor...

But they aren't? You can blame the idea of balance of power on that move. Britain undertook the alliance with Prussia in order to forestall war. Naturally, the balance of power is kind of a sham, but they had no way of knowing that at the time. The parts exist for the good of the whole. If...

The betterment of the people. It was happening because some French governor treated some British colonists living on disputed land as though they were trespassers. No, I don't think two-tiered legal systems are inherently a bad thing.

The United States was not a separate legal entity from Britain. Britain did not go over to America and try to conquer it like the Nazis did France or the Soviets did the Balkan states. Benign neglect doesn't imply independence. It just means that the master is letting his servants do as they...

We can certainly disobey the government if it cracks down on evangelizing, yes. In fact, we ought to disobey the state in this way. Though I'd say, with all things, that violence ought to be the last resort. That it "precludes the English" is precisely what's being debated here. I don't believe...

How is this vague or oblique? It seems pretty clear to me.

From the beginning, I laid out what I believe to be the grounds for a just rebellion against the state. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you guys to understand.

Actually, there is. I believe that Luigi Taparelli d'Azeglio showed how natural inequality leads to the right to rule. You are correct that an agreement is to be made, but I argue that the agreement has not been broken in the case of America Revolution. The main thrust of the Revolution - that...

By 1775, the rebellion was in the full swing of things, my dude. From the King's perspective, the colonists threw a violent fit and then sent him a letter asking for him to basically back down. He had no reason to accept it. Again, America was a colony of Britain, so it was represented by the...

Whichever one is the true Church. Obviously, I'd go with the Catholic Church. There's a difference between a rebellion and a war. A war has two legitimate authorities going head-to-head. The Baltic states and France were both independent countries, and neither the Nazis nor the Soviets were...

God and His Church. Well, obviously, Romans 13 can't tell us to do something immoral since Scripture is infallible. Still, it should serve as a strong reason to have submission to authority be the default. I do believe that. Again, I believe that the natural rights justification, that there's...

You can disobey your government precisely when it either forces you to do something you ought not do or prohibits you from doing what you ought to do. Neither was the case under the colonies. A mercantilist trade policy that they did not have prior to when the colonies started rebelling against...

You're correct. Why, just look at all of the other former British colonies. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all had these violent revolutions too. But let's suppose you are right. So? We're talking about the morality of the American Revolution, not whether or not it was inevitable.

You are just being hysterical. Just looking at the links you sent me only proves my point. First, when you say that you can't have taxation without representation, that's not a part of the English constitution. That was just a slogan asserted by the colonists (as well as yourself). By...

Okay, let's go through the facts that you ignored. Britain didn't "start a war in the colonies." The colonies were part of Britain, and they fought alongside Britain in the war against the French. The alternative was the French winning. I don't think any British colonist wanted the French to...

Anybody who thinks the American Rebellion was justified ought to take a look at some of what the Loyalists said. Thomas Hutchinson, the royal governor of Massachusetts from 1758 to 1774, took a look at the charges that the Declaration of Independence made and debunked them point by point in his...