And with the glory of hindsight, we’re able to see that we disagree with their sentiment (at least most of us) and what they had was not liberty. Not by a country mile.
That’s impossible since liberty is natural.
You can disagree, but the reality is that a govt. liberated them if liberty comes from govt.
Life is natural, but it can be snuffed out.
1 Like
I agree they thought that at the time.
Then the natives at the time were liberated.
1 Like
Because in nature, the strong have more liberty than the weak. Hence, government which, in the West at least, is supposed to insure liberty for all.
Liberty isn’t, and it can be snuffed out.
Or, the strong can properly recognize liberty and seek to defend it for themselves and others. Or, they can form a government and later slaughter natives.
According to them? Sure
And the point is what? That liberty does not exist in nature and people define it? That sounds like an argument looking for a disagreement. Hint: that person is not posting at the moment.
I disagree. I liberty is simply the absence of coercion.
3 Likes
Well, govt. can’t be the originator of liberty since govternments too disagree on what liberty is.
And govts can be snuffed out.
If we go back to killing natives tomorrow, are we back to liberating them?
There is always coercion so liberty does not exist.
There’s always death, life doesn’t exist?
1 Like
People came up with the concept. Governments are run by people.
If life doesn’t exist, then death does not exist.
People still disagree, so liberty can’t exist.