3 ms·

I sort of see your point, but this is a monarch, not some self starter entrepreneur. They made their wealth by literally "taking other people's money" through f

I sort of see your point, but this is a monarch, not some self starter entrepreneur. They made their wealth by literally "taking other people's money" through force or threat of force. Why simp for these people?

_8j50 4y ago
I don't care about them. I care about justice. Their use of force at the time was lawful and if it wasn't I don't care. They enslaved and murdered too and they can't be punished for it retroactively. Justice and equality under law for everyone, the rich and powerful as well as the poor and weak. Rule of law and civil order. Advocating for anything less makes you the criminal and law breaker. Whatever injustice you face you have deserved it already because you accepted injustice against others.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  "criminal" and "law breaker" are just terms used by the ruling class to describe behavior they believe they have the power to ban. You seem to be acting as if "law" is some independent natural phenomena as opposed to something created by and for the rulers
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Those terms are terms used to describe the relationship between rulers and the ruled in a civilization governed by the rule of law. rulers can't rule without the people agreeing to the rules and the military enforcing their rule. What you do when you disagree with the ruling class is revolt and then come up with new rules so you can punish people who break the rules you came up with. The law if any ruler can be unjust and if you tolerate that law then those acting in accordance to it are immune from future punishment. If the ruler is unjust then you must rebel if you want to change thier laws.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  The "rulers" are the criminals and law breakers against the only legitimate source of law: democracy and the consent of governed.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Democracy is not the only form of government and the consent if the people is not required to form a government. But if the people want that, they must establish such a government by whatever means just like americans did 1979 after winning a bloody war to establish such a form of government. It was blood not votes that allowed american democracy to exist and it was also blood that allowed King George to rule over america to begin with and it wad blood that allowed comminists in China, Russia, Cuba and NK to establish their govenment,etc... Blood usually but always is the source that allows establishment of a military which must first accept that form of government and then the people need only tolerate the rule of law enforced ultimately through the military. Any source of law that is capable of enforcing that law is legitimate. But you can disagree with authoritatians for example and fight to replace them with a democracy (Iraq is calling, they want Saddam back! Lol jk) but even though you can do so it is unjust and under rule of law criminal to punish someone who followed the law of the land or to creatr laws that punish people for acts done before the law was passed.
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      So, might makes right? What horseshit! Regardless, by that philosophy, they would be perfectly justified to take the king's property. If they are capable of doing it, then it's legitimate.

_8j50 4y ago

I don't care about them. I care about justice. Their use of force at the time was lawful and if it wasn't I don't care. They enslaved and murdered too and they can't be punished for it retroactively. Justice and equality under law for everyone, the rich and powerful as well as the poor and weak. Rule of law and civil order. Advocating for anything less makes you the criminal and law breaker. Whatever injustice you face you have deserved it already because you accepted injustice against others.

snapcaster 4y ago
"criminal" and "law breaker" are just terms used by the ruling class to describe behavior they believe they have the power to ban. You seem to be acting as if "law" is some independent natural phenomena as opposed to something created by and for the rulers
- _8j50 4y ago
  Those terms are terms used to describe the relationship between rulers and the ruled in a civilization governed by the rule of law. rulers can't rule without the people agreeing to the rules and the military enforcing their rule. What you do when you disagree with the ruling class is revolt and then come up with new rules so you can punish people who break the rules you came up with. The law if any ruler can be unjust and if you tolerate that law then those acting in accordance to it are immune from future punishment. If the ruler is unjust then you must rebel if you want to change thier laws.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
The "rulers" are the criminals and law breakers against the only legitimate source of law: democracy and the consent of governed.
- _8j50 4y ago
  Democracy is not the only form of government and the consent if the people is not required to form a government. But if the people want that, they must establish such a government by whatever means just like americans did 1979 after winning a bloody war to establish such a form of government. It was blood not votes that allowed american democracy to exist and it was also blood that allowed King George to rule over america to begin with and it wad blood that allowed comminists in China, Russia, Cuba and NK to establish their govenment,etc... Blood usually but always is the source that allows establishment of a military which must first accept that form of government and then the people need only tolerate the rule of law enforced ultimately through the military. Any source of law that is capable of enforcing that law is legitimate. But you can disagree with authoritatians for example and fight to replace them with a democracy (Iraq is calling, they want Saddam back! Lol jk) but even though you can do so it is unjust and under rule of law criminal to punish someone who followed the law of the land or to creatr laws that punish people for acts done before the law was passed.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    So, might makes right? What horseshit! Regardless, by that philosophy, they would be perfectly justified to take the king's property. If they are capable of doing it, then it's legitimate.