Neither does coercion then, if liberty doesn’t.
People disagree so people can’t exist.
Then your definition was wrong.
No sir, it wasn’t. You said liberty exists due to government and not nature, since liberty isn’t agreed upon.
The concept of liberty is agreed upon (why else would we have a word for it?), it’s the degrees that are in dispute.
The presence of coercion is not evidence of the absence of liberty in nature. Death doesn’t negate the presence of life.
1 Like
Then we would be liberating the natives?
You said absence of coercion, not me. And life does not negate the presence of death.
It’s a simple question. Did the Us govt liberate them, or not?
By killing them? We are liberating them from life.
Then liberty can exist in nature alongside coercion.
Are you asking? Or have you changed your mind?
I’m asking you. If liberty comes from the govt, did it liberate the natives?
Which natives? Some were killed, others driven off the land, others forced onto reservations.
All of which are acts of liberation since it came from a more powerful govt.(people)?
1 Like
They claimed they were liberating natives? That’s news to me. I’d love to see a source if you have one
Couldn’t they claim it, if they are the originators of liberty? Saving the backwards savage natives from being enslaved by their ignorance?
1 Like
Yeah, I think this is an answer looking for a question.
They could HAVE claimed anything. But what they did claim and do is what matters.
Anything a govt. does would be liberating. if it is the originator of liberty.
Why are we so reluctant to answer the question?
1 Like