If you’re talking about the US government in the 19th century then what you’re saying makes more sense, since public opinion was somewhat influential at that time. If you went back, however, you’d see that if we were talking about any government (which wasn’t necessarily the case) it was that of Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries, since my opponent claimed that the inhabitants of the newly established USA lived on stolen land and had brutalised the Indians.
That is so untrue. How can you back this up? I know you said you were responding to someone, but you still said this, and it has no meaning.
When someone says “how can you explain A except by B” and I offer reason C, it means I do believe that C is true, but not necessarily that A is true. I answer people on their premises. I believe we have a violent founding and violent past. Even a mainstream history book will show you that; a good history book will show it more effectively. I don’t know that we’re particularly violent as a people.
As opposed to now where we have the government’s issuance of eminent domain.
Also a terribly statist program, and one that should be ended. What’s the contradiction?
Are you kidding me? You’re resorting to emotion and racism in order to try to prove your point. As I said, land ownership means not messing with other people’s property. That also means no government deciding a race of people can be deemed slaves. All of the actions you listed were performed by individuals, not a collective group. With your logic, the 9/11 attacks really should be blamed on the population living in the Middle East.
So when the government of England decided a race of people should be slaves, that was wrong. Yes, of course actions are performed by individuals. That’s Austrian 101. Nonetheless, those actions, by individuals, influence future developments. The fact that settlers tended to be violent towards Indians might have influenced who was willing to come over from England, for instance. Further, people grow up in a culture. If they see people of their parents’ generation, whether their parents are participating or not, engaged in slaughter, this influences their thinking and development. If you live in a culture of military parades or where people who kill a lot of people are regarded as folk heroes, yes, this might tend to make your thinking more violent. As far as land ownership, I was referring to what types of actions qualify as Lockean homesteading. It seems to work out nicely that the kinds of things white men tend to do make this land ownership happen, but the kinds of things Indians tend to do with land do not give them ownership, but at best a sort of right of way.
It’s an absolute joke that you’re acting as if we all have a say regarding what the government, military, and CIA do on a daily basis.
I wasn’t the one who went down that path. The claim I was responding to was that Americans might be less violent than other people since our government is less aggressive. It seems relevant to point out that it is not, and in fact engages in more aggression than most other governments.
- In any case I was not talking about ALL people living under big government, and not claiming that they were responsible for all government actions. I was merely making a comment about the tolerance of - and indeed desire for - government aggression amongst individuals living in different parts of the world, and that it seems to me that this is lower in the USA than in certain countries.
But what makes it seem that way? As far as I can tell, the US government is more aggressive than most. Do you mean that most of the violence committed by the US government is done outside the borders, whereas other governments commit more inside? First, that’s rapidly changing. Second, no one thinks “wouldn’t it be great if the government committed violence against me?” Everyone wants that violence to be committed against others. This is true whether it’s being tolerated against other citizens, or other outsiders.
This is the part with which I fundamentally disagree. If parents during that time were engaged in slaughter, it doesn’t mean that the children will be involved in that activity whatsoever. I grew up around a middle school and high school with kids drinking and doing drugs and having sex at an incredibly young age. The thought never came into my mind that I should be like them. I saw it was wrong, and it made me want to never drink and do any of that stuff because it showed me the importance of being a kid. So, yes, some kids might follow their parents’ bad behaviors, but it’s definitely not the case for everyone. That’s just how society progresses. And I don’t mean to speak for children of continual war, but I feel like all they’d want is peace.