The Mythical Lincoln

[David Floyd]

You can't have it both ways! If you think it's legal to fight against an law that denies basic human rights if you can't vote for it, than it should be just as acceptable if they recieve support from those that can!

I certainly can have it both ways.
The South had a legal right to secede. The slaves had a moral right to revolt.

However, aggressive war against a neighbor, who has done nothing to you, is never moral, nor were many of the US's actions during the war. Therefore, the US had no moral right to invade the CSA.

I suppose they had a legal right to, but only if they declared war - which they didn't.

I don't say it's illegal. We forced the south to ratify for reentrance into the Union...nothing wrong with that

OK.
Thanks for granting me my argument, by the way - because if secession was illegal, then the South never really seceded, and thus could not have been readmitted, because they never left, and if they never left you can't just force them to vote a certain way on Constitutional amendments.
YOU'RE the one who can't have it both ways

I was just WAITING for someone to make that argument.

This isn't about my feelings on gun control. In fact, I don't see where this applies at all unless you're trying to sneak in an anti-gun control blurb in that one can't fight gun control without guns. What's the point here DF?

Well, what you said is that violent revolt is OK if there is no reasonable chance for changing the law. I voiced my agreement, and asked if, because there is no reasonable chance of abolishing gun control, which is unconstitutional any way you slice it, you would support a violent revolt against it.
Do you? Again, you can't have it both ways

Well I feel he was incorrect in that. His first allegience should have been to his country, the UNITED states of America

I totally disagree.

[David Floyd]

You can't escape this paradox DF...if you claim the CSA is a soverign nation, than accept that they were invaded, defeated, and once again became part of the United States and that the stipulations of the surrender allowed for the LEGAL abolition of slavery.

If you think they were not a soverign nation, than they were guilty of treason, and the Union's actions were justified.

Then again, the North never tried to claim that the South actually seceded until they decided to ram Constitutional amendments down the South's throat. They're the ones guilty of logical inconsistencies, not me.

So was, effectively, Mein Kampf.

No it wasn't, and certainly not in the same way the Constitution is.

[Goingonit]

legality vs. morality is a tough debate. On one hand, if morality trumps the law, then why have law at all? (Ramo and other anarchists I know you don't like law but there is a purpose for it. Trust me.) On the other hand, if the law trumps morality, then what do you do if the law is unjust?

My solution is to comply with the law whenever possible. If you cannot survive while a certain law exists, or you cannot do things that you sincerely feel are essential to your life, go for it! Break that law!

OTOH, if you just want to smoke pot for example, then there are ways to change the law that don't require sabotaging the foundations of our society.

However, this isn't a perfect system as it still mandates a morality higher than law.

[Ramo]

It was the framework for Nazi philosophy. It was certainly comparable in this respect to the Constitution.

But you're missing my point. You were saying that the Constitution must be followed simply because it is the law. Slave revolts were certainly illegal, so why do you support them?

[KrazyHorse]

Of course there's a morality higher than law. It's simply that we agree to follow the law even when we disagree with it in non-fundamental respects.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I certainly can have it both ways.
The South had a legal right to secede. The slaves had a moral right to revolt.

However, aggressive war against a neighbor, who has done nothing to you, is never moral, nor were many of the US's actions during the war. Therefore, the US had no moral right to invade the CSA.

I suppose they had a legal right to, but only if they declared war - which they didn't.

The North had a moral right to support the overthrow of the south I say the most moral action of the North's war was getting 3 very special amendments passed

And yes, they had a legal right to as well because of two reasons...A) revolts needed to be supressed and B) they had been fired on

OK.
Thanks for granting me my argument, by the way - because if secession was illegal, then the South never really seceded, and thus could not have been readmitted, because they never left, and if they never left you can't just force them to vote a certain way on Constitutional amendments.

Hey I'm just refuting you. My feelings are that the South was not a soverign nation, it was part of the United States and involved in an organized revolt. They were defeated. They were 'readmitted' to the Union because they had declared themselves a separate nation, which perhaps they were, but not legally and without soverignty.

YOU'RE the one who can't have it both ways

Well, what you said is that violent revolt is OK if there is no reasonable chance for changing the law. I voiced my agreement, and asked if, because there is no reasonable chance of abolishing gun control, which is unconstitutional any way you slice it, you would support a violent revolt against it.
Do you? Again, you can't have it both ways

Again, this is not a debate about gun control. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

However, I will humour you...

I feel that the only injustices that can be justified with violent revolt are those that deny basic human rights (and no, you weren't born with a gun so the right to own a gun is not a basic human right)

However, I support any form of non violent protest to protest ANYTHING that you want to protest. If gun control is passed and you want to organize a giant non violent protest, I will absolutely support your right to do it and commend you for doing it non violently However, if you start a bloody revolt, I'd condem you and support any charges brought up against you (within reason )

Lets not get away from the task at hand, ok?



I totally disagree. [/QUOTE]

[Ramo]

Ramo and other anarchists I know you don't like law but there is a purpose for it. Trust me.

Actually, I do support minimal laws.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Of course there's a morality higher than law. It's simply that we agree to follow the law even when we disagree with it in non-fundamental respects.

But whose morality do we use?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is ironic that most of the people defending Lincoln's actions in the civil war decry Bush's assault on civil liberties in the 'War on Terrorism'?

[DinoDoc]

I thought that was amusing as well, Imran.

I want my question answered.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Goingonit


But whose morality do we use?

"We" don't use anybody else's morality; we each use our own. Other people are quite free to believe what they want to. I can't change someone else's mind for them; I can, however, defend those principles I believe are right wholeheartedly against others' actions.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
"We" don't use anybody else's morality; we each use our own. Other people are quite free to believe what they want to. I can't change someone else's mind for them; I can, however, defend those principles I believe are right wholeheartedly against others' actions.

But now we have a double standard! I only have to follow my rules and you only have to follow your rules...it will be the same as having no law at all.

[orange]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is ironic that most of the people defending Lincoln's actions in the civil war decry Bush's assault on civil liberties in the 'War on Terrorism'?

Well, which issues? I fail to see the irony...

A right to a fair and open trial is something we should always strive to uphold. Which of Lincoln's actions is similar to depriving civil liberties?

[Imran Siddiqui]

CALVINBALL!

Oooh, society based on that game would be fun .

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Goingonit


But now we have a double standard! I only have to follow my rules and you only have to follow your rules...it will be the same as having no law at all.

No...nobody "has" to follow any rules, but disobeying them comes with a price. If I'm in a situation where I need to break the law, then I better be prepared to pay that price.

EDIT: The law keeps us in check; I have a healthy respect for what it means to live in a civil society, but I always reserve the right to break the rules of this society if it's necessary.