mbh26 Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 Thinking back to the American revolution, I find it interesting that the American colonist were not British slaves. It was a feudal system that I believe was very similar to our modern capitalism. Brits born in America were viewed as having less rights than people in England although they were of the same race. Therefore Americans had little say in what their portion of taxes should be because they were not represented. This is why the revolution was fought. This why limbs were lost, parents lost, and whole lot of suffering too place. What were the Americans odds of being successful in this revolution? Do our chances of success influence whether revolution is morally right? One standard often lauded as moral when going to war is to defend ones land. Land through much of history was a mans way to make a living. Without land, you could not live. The modern economy is no longer just about land. Different forms of capital have nearly become essential as land to live. Income tax was origninally unconstitutional. The power of the federal government was once subject to the power of the state. What did the men who fought the American revolution have in mind when they made up these rules? Being territorial and protecting your land seems selfish to some. Shouldn't the land belong to everyone? Yet even the animals before human beings had practiced the principal of being territorial. This protects against a very important problem in the human predicament, overpopulation. I'm not talking about climate change. I'm talking about forcing people to have sufficient capital to provide a human standard of living before they reproduce. In my view borders have accomplished this through history to some extent, much better than any command economy. Can we say now that education and jobs are what our land used to be. Yet we really don't have much protection for a mans job. When men became old and slowed down by disease, they didn't get thrown off their land, at least not free men. They just didn't have quite as rich a harvest. Yet when men get old and slowed down by disease in todays economy, they just get fired. But the real way to better ones standard of living in this world, and the only way to live to excess, is not by taking advantage of the land, or even the animals. To do this, you have to take advantage of other people. And we see it happening all the time. Revolution against those who currently take advantage of other people would be very costly to those who chose to fight it and very unsuccessful. But how bad does the abuse have to be before it's the right thing to do? In a way I see a benefit to those who will not suffer the smallest injustice without a fight. These people will never be slaves. They live free or die. But the Book of Mormon talks of the Nephites in captivity who decided it was better to live as slaves than die fighting a war they couldn't win. But should whether you can win or not really determine whether you have a right to fight or not? We see George Washington as a hero and inspired by God. What gave him the peace of mind to know what he was doing was right as he cut through the Brits? Is it possible that there were rebels in the wrong who thought they were right? I'm assuming God didn't come down and talk to any of them face to face. Link to comment
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.