Were the colonists legally right for revolting against Crown law? I was having this argument with some boomer just yesterday and he was trying to argue that law is objective, which it isn't, and I proved this by using the Revolution as an example. And he was trying to gaslight me into saying laws should be obeyed no matter what, despite his cognitive dissonance with my example. The colonists had a different point of view as to what constituted as actual law, and so this is what brought them in conflict with the Crown. Therefore law is not something that's set in stone but can be always be challenged and changed according to one's will.
Laws are only real if the people want to follow them and enforce them, otherwise it means absolutely nothing objectively speaking
>>18112938Citizens have a DUTY to rebel against tyrannical governments
>>18112977And this is purely subjective by the way
>>18112938>laws should be obeyed no matter whatEven if the law says the King and his ministers can run a train on your wife whenever they please?
>>18112938>Were the colonists legally right for revolting against Crown law?No. Obviously, violent insurrection is illegal.
It is legal when you win, so better not lose.
>>18112981>it's subjective when the King has ordered your ports blockaded and subjective when he sends in armed soldiers to suppress your liberties >>18113101>if the King does it, it's not a crime
>>18112938Romans 13They are sinners
>>18113169"Tyrannical government" is subjective, it might be a just government according to others and indeed 2/3rds of the colonists in the beginning were OK with shutting up and paying their taxes
>>18112938Law is designed to be objective, like numbers, it's supposed to be self-referential and therefore logical. However the phenomena it describes are too complicated for that to work. Where humanity and law contradict, the law is wrong, but still self-referential. The law is the law. It's designed to change constantly through precedent and legislation, but flexibility is limited. Usually there's said to be a higher law of God, that works for people who think objective means moral. To argue with an atheist, who thinks he can grasp a scientific worldview that commands all true knowledge, you just have to pick another area of science and "prove" what happened was necessary, right back at him. It's not perfect because the two arguments will be equal and non-contradictory, just keep piling on weak scientific arguments until they outnumber the opposition. The atheist knows everything so only a competing narrative of omniscience can defeat him.
>>18113182>2/3rds of the colonists in the beginning were OK with>in the beginningWhat do you consider "the beginning"?Anything post-Boston's port being blockaded was objectively tyranny
>>18113373don't you think he's right though? It would be pretty unusual for most of the population to support armed conflict against the sovereign.
>>18113354>Law is designed to be objective, like numbersSays who, you? I just proved by the Revolution that this was only a matter of subjective opinion and still is to this day.>>18113373Regardless there were still people in the colonies, loyalist or not, who did not partake in this rebellion after the Brits blockaded Boston's ports. It was considered tyranny, only, by some.Likewise I can also denounce the law and its enforcers currently, find the whole system 'tyrannical' and not abide by it myself if I don't want to, that doesn't mean the rest of the population thinks like me.
The Constitution even admits that the laws are fluid, because it gives the People the right to alter and abolish the government if they wanted to, peacefully, or by insurrection. Ultimately it's what the People want.
And by "People", I mean, those who are able to exert their will, laws or not.
>>18113425Yes, says me. This is not a legal discussion or structured debate, you asked and I answered. If you have a real response I might consider answering again, but simply saying the opposite is nothing in this context. I don't care what you say.
>>18113403>It would be pretty unusual for most of the population to support armed conflict against the sovereign.No shit. And most didn't even as the lobsterbacks were marching through the streets of Philly. It's not a question of what percentage of the population grabbed a musket to take potshots at the King's hired guns, it's a question of, at what point did the King's actions *objectively* pass the threshold into tyranny? I say it was when he blockaded Boston's ports and marched troops into town to secure the city. Just as it was tryanny when Charlie I tried to capture Hull in 1642. Georgie ordering Boston harbor shut down and Charlie marching on Hull revealed their hands as tyrants willing to suppress Englishmen's rights. Now, obviously one can argue that only made it tryanny in regards to Boston - NYC, Williamsburg (or Norfolk) and Charleston weren't being tyrannized yet. But do the colonists not have an obligation to see the writing on the wall and take up arms in defense of themselves, as well as their fellow Englishmen on the continent? >>18113425>It was considered tyranny, only, by some.No shit. Who's going to be crying "Tyrant! Off with the King's head!" in Williamsburg, VA (Henry being an outlier) when said tryanny is happening 600 miles away in Boston? Just because it hadn't reached a certain city yet doesn't make it not-tyranny. The King stepped on Englishmen's rights. That's tyranny. Simple as.>that doesn't mean the rest of the population thinks like me.Irrelevant because that's not what happened lol
>>18113480>at what point did the King's actions *objectively* pass the threshold into tyrannyNever. Tyranny is not an objective legal concept that exists outside of all legal systems. Clearly you're the boomer in OP
>>18113464The only thing justifying the rule of law is force and force alone set out by those who are capable of exerting their will against their supposedly weaker subjects, it has nothing to do with right or wrong, God, or moral obligations.
>>18112938Cognitive dissonance usually ends up creating culture
>>18113485That's because law is a lesser concept than force, right and wrong, or God. The law is wrong much more often than those things. It's still important, but it's a system created by men to be broadly applicable. It's not above anyone, it won't stop anyone from committing a crime.
>>18113495It's only a crime if you yield to it, if you win against it, like some Anon said here it doesn't matter
>>18113508Good thing the law of God is higher. Or if you're an atheist, a dozen unrelated scientific proofs show the revolution had to happen regardless of the law.
>>18112938The whole point of the Common Law legal system that we have is for it to be both obective and subjective.>Precedents, rules, and statues are objective>Interpretation, application, reasoning and trial fairness are subjectiveThis allows for laws to be flexible, as they are able to adapt and interpretated over time.>Were the colonists legally right for revolting against Crown law?No, but they did so anyways and won the war so they're 'right' in the end.
>>18113484>Tyranny is not an objective legal concept It absolutely is. >that exists outside of all legal systems.>outside of all legal systems>outside ofWhy the fuck would it? That makes no fucking sense at all. It's even more retarded than OP's boomer saying you should never *not* follow the law even if the law says to kill yourself.
>>18113526I guess it objectively became tyranny under English law when it was discussed in the courts and legislature then, so never.
>>18113515>Good thing the law of God is higher. Or if you're an atheist, a dozen unrelated scientific proofs show the revolution had to happen regardless of the law.I don't really believe in either of those things, for me, it's just might makes right.
>>18113544then why don't big cars simply run over little cars?
>>18113545What is this bullshit you're trying to sell now, Anon..
>>18113530>if it's not expressly stated and defined it can't happen at allYou're retarded
>>18113373>was objectively tyrannyBy what objective criteria was it tyranny?
>>18113549If science doesn't exist, why is a society full of dysgenics able to succeed? The strongest individuals should simply win.
>>18113550If it's not stated it's not part of a legal system.
>>18113550If it's not expressly stated and defined in law, how can it be objectively measured?
>>18113562Retarded.
>>18113565concession accepted
>>18113480>I say it was when he blockaded Boston's ports and marched troops into town to secure the city.It's tyranny to suppress insurrection and rebellion?
>>18113571>it's insurrection and rebellion when you protest your way of life being infringed upon but not tyranny when you do the oppressing>NNNOOOOO NOT MUH HECKIN MONOPOLIZED SHAREHOLDERS TEA PROFITS AAAAHHHHHCry harder about that tea nigger
>>18113571>It's tyranny because uhmm.. our feelings were hurt over some taxes used as recompense to defend us in the French&Indian Wars and that's why we needed to chimp out you see :((
>>18113593Destruction of property, assault, theft, and disruption of commerce are all crimes, and governments are right to punish criminals. Violent action taken to enact political change is terrorism by definition.
>>18113604>implying Americans didn't fight in that war>French & Indian wars>warslol, lmao even
>>18113593>Colonists start the Seven Years War>Get mad when they have to pay for it
>>18113608>Destruction of propertyLike blockading a cities main port? >assaultLike shooting civilians because somebody threw a snowball? >theftLike taxes passed by a body with no representative authority? >disruption of commerce Like giving a monopoly to one company that uses it to undersell the entire commodity market? Seems the King and Parliament were criminals after all.
I don't think the decision was taken based on legal arguments. They were discussing human rights and practical difficulties of governance across the Atlantic.
>>18113642Like I said, this is subjective, because this argument is getting nowhere. Your opponent has just as much "right" and "legal basis" as you do for prosecution.
>>18113642>Like blockading a cities main port?Done as a response to existing insurrection. >Like shooting civilians because somebody threw a snowball?Self-defence against a violent mob. >Like taxes passed by a body with no representative authority?Lord North's government was legitimately elected and passed their legislation in parliament. No theft here. Throwing a tantrum because the government did something you didn't like is literal child mentality. >Like giving a monopoly to one company that uses it to undersell the entire commodity market?I'm surprised you haven't thrown out your arm with this reach. It sounds like you're just mad that the government is allowed to do things. Don't worry, when your teenage commie phase is over, you'll realize how silly you sound.
>>18112938>The colonists had a different point of view as to what constituted as actual law, and so this is what brought them in conflict with the CrownYou just contradicted yourself, either the provinces and metropolis had different views (subjective) of the same law (objective) or they had different laws based on their feelings or whatever (subjective). Two people disagreeing with each other does not prove the non-existence of truth
>>18113650>this is subjectiveDoes not follow from>this argument is getting nowhere
>>18113628>colonists startIt was a Scotsmen that started it you retard >>18113650>just as much rightNot when he's claiming to be King/the people's representative body. >>18113654>Done as a response to existing insurrection."Insurrection" in response to destroying the local economy through a bullshit monopoly. >Self-defence against a violent mob.Violent because they had no right being there. >Lord North's government was legitimately elected and passed their legislation in parliament.Which had no authority over Englishmen that did not elect them. >muh reachI accept your concession on this one. Not willing to defend a monopoly, are we?>muh commie phasePathetic. Explain to me when exactly it was that the colonists lost their status as Englishmen, born under the English Crown, in Crown lands, and deserved to have their English Rights trampled.
>>18113663So what is the truth of this matter? What is the ultimate truth of law?
>>18113671That's a different question.
>>18113679You're not really answering either very well. What is this supposed truth that they were fighting about?
>>18113667>"Insurrection" in response to destroying the local economy through a bullshit monopoly.>destroyingAll you do is argue by melodrama. >Violent because they had no right being there.British soldiers had no right to be in British territory? This is a new one. Unless you mean the mob had no right to be there, to which I would of course agree. >Which had no authority over Englishmen that did not elect them.Dead wrong, kiddo. Most Englishmen not having the franchise was irrelevant and is still irrelevant today. Are you going to say next that everyone under 18 ought to revolt against the government because they didn't vote for it?>I accept your concession on this one. Not willing to defend a monopoly, are we?It wasn't even worth it to dignify that joke of a point with a response. If you seriously believe that vigilantes disrupting trade by attacking ships is the same thing as the king granting a royal monopoly, then you are on a plane of retardation which no person has explored before.>and deserved to have their English Rights trampled.None of their rights were trampled. There was no right for them to evade taxation or commit crimes. If you mean representation in parliament, they never lost that right; they simply made their exercise of it impossible when they chose to live across the Atlantic.
>>18113686I mean "what is the objective truth" is different from "does objective truth exist". I answered the latter very well.
>>18113705>All you do is argue by melodrama.Not an argument faggot.>moving the goalpostsThey had no right to put an English city under armed guard like that and you know it. >b-b-b-but the shareholders tea profits!!! So you support the government propping up a failing company at the expense of good English folk who had no part in it? Better to cut off the good arm of the growing Anglo Empire than the diseased foot stuck in the East Indies, eh?>it's irrelevant because... because it just is okay!?!? Are you even trying? >If you seriously believe that vigilantes disrupting trade So only the King can disrupt trade, then? >the same thing as the king granting a royal monopolyYou're purposefully ignoring what the monopoly entailed because you know it nukes your entire argument. Keep coping, you've lost. >None of their rights were trampled. Now you're just outright lying like a pathetic faggot. >they simply made their exercise of it impossible when they chose to live across the Atlantic.Except they didn't - because they had the same Royally-appointed Governor's as the Carribean colonies did. Parliament had no good authority to intercede between the King and the Colonial Governor's in such a way as to usurp the Royal prerogative of colonial administration. Both George and Parliament were in the wrong when they failed to use the Governor's as their middle-man with the colonies to redress the issue of taxes. AND made it infinitely worse when, instead of appointing able bodied figures like Botetourt, or keeping Nelson, they moved that retard Dunmore to a position he actively despised. Don't even bother responding because it's painfully obvious you don't have anything beyond a middle school education's understanding of the whole affair.
>>18113789>Don't even bother responding Because you're afraid I'll make you look like an even bigger moron? I think I will respond and put you out of your misery. >Not an argument faggot.Neither is your melodramatic whining. >They had no right to put an English city under armed guard like that and you know it.Yes they did. No goalposts were moved. >So you support the government propping up a failing company at the expense of good English folk who had no part in it?The proper response to this is to petition parliament for change, not to chimp out and start an insurrection. >Are you even trying?Clearly you're not, because you didn't bother refuting any of the points I made. The government was legitimately elected and no amount of your whining will change that fact. >So only the King can disrupt trade, then?Parliament can. >You're purposefully ignoring what the monopoly entailed because you know it nukes your entire argument.I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant, like so much else you're saying. >Now you're just outright lying like a pathetic faggot.lol someone's mad. Anyway, that's not an argument, I accept your concession. >Except they didn't - becauseLiterally nothing in your paragraph is relevant to what I said. try harder next time, kid.
>>18113834>I think I will respond and put you out of your misery.lmao, lmfao even>y-y-y-your melodramatic thingStill not an argument. I knew you would come back with nothing.>they did because... because they just did okay!?!?Not arguments: 2>The proper response to this is to petition parliament for changeThey did, retard. AND they petitioned the King. Are you seriously so retarded as to engage in an argument the grounds of which you know nothing about? >you didn't bother refuting any of the points I madeWhich points? All I see is "melodramatic whining" about the colonists being wrong because, well, just because I guess sincr you haven't offered a single fact-based case.>The government was legitimately electedNot by Englishmen in the colonies. By Englishmen in England, yes, but not colonies. You're 0 for 4, care to keep going? >Parliament canYou said yourself it was a Royal monopoly though. So what does Parliament have to do with it?>it's irrelevant because... because... because it just is!!! Truly pathetic. >someone's madYes, (you). If you're going to troll at least do it well, this is just pathetic. >yet another "it's not revelant" because... because I have no idea what you're talking about, okay!?!? Spoken like a true retard, and likely an /int/nigger at that. Insert your coins to play again, /int/nigger.
>>18113726You didn't answer anything.. very well.. Sir..
>>18113868You're right, we should revolt against the Crown because.. whatever, it doesn't matter, as long as we win. End of story, faggot. Stop arguing with the Briton.
>>18113897>the BritonThe absolute state of /int/niggers...
>>18113900Whoever was arguing for the Crown was about to pwn you, in the legal sphere, luckily this doesn't matter at all.
>>18113910>luckily this doesn't matter at allBecause you lost and now you're (very poorly I might add) trying to pretend to be another anon, yes. Fuck off back to >>>/int/ already
>>18113949I'm actually not him but yes, in my opinion Britain's position is more sound on the legal matter.
>>18113956>I'm actually not himProve it with a screenshot then>more sound on the legal matterpicrelated Georgie lost. He should've been glad to have had an ocean between him and his subjects.
>>18113973>Prove it with a screenshot thenWon't bother>picrelated>Georgie lost. He should've been glad to have had an ocean between him and his subjects.I know but we weren't chatting about who lost, but rather, who was justified in law and my response was that it doesn't matter.. in the OP.
>>18113981Nice reddit spacing m8Whoever wins is justified in the law. Simple as>I should know by what authori-ACK!
>>18114003>Whoever wins is justified in the lawWell not really tbqh but use of force will end the matter entirely, regardless.
>>18114014>well ummmm ackshually not really>use of force will end the matter entirelyPick one
>>18114016
>>18114003>durr law is an objective magical thing that exists outside of time and space>dat means it doesnt really exist!I admit this argument is internally consistent, but it is wrong.
>>18112938natural law could be argued. to translate that into human law would be something like "inflicting pain onto others inevitably causes more pain and suffering and is therefor wrong". other than that its just a system of control used to the current monopoly on violence's benefit
>>18113671The Ultimate Truth of Law is very simple. It's also elucidated upon in the holy texts of the Chosen, but is still quite simple.There are only two types of laws:>1. Laws so Specific that you can selectively apply them to enemies while not charging allies.And>2. Ones so Broad that you can always find a supposed wrongdoing to levy against your enemies.
>>18114347you have to be 18 to post on this site
>>18114190>dat means it doesnt really exist!I'm arguing that it does, in fact exist, you fucking midwit. Its objectivity is obvious by the very fact that it exists as a socially defining norm. What the retards ITT aren't capable of understanding apparently is that the Law proper is above definition. Tyranny doesn't need to explicitly defined in any given law book to exist. It's a fucking concept as much as "muh freedom" or "muh free speech".
>>18114600You are underage and this is cargo cult thinking. Law isn't a god, real life isn't Judge Dredd. Law is a word with a specific definition you can look up.
>be american colonist >show up in town>somebody will sell you spit of land 100 miles away for a dollar >get attacked by indians >go back to town "hey there's an indian problem">yeah, no shit>sell your land and move to a small town>pay premium >yankee doodle dandy shows up>tax time!>go fuck yourself>no schools>no churches>no clergy>no civilization>king wants to boss you around>some dude throws a rock
>>18114886Your reliance on strawmen really speaks to your IQ level.
>>18114921what you're talking about sounds more like right and wrong than law. Nothing you said has anything to do with the law, or even if you lump in scientific laws. If you do that though, or if you go further, the boomer has won because he's talking about real laws. You're talking about something completely different.
>>18114932You're just too low IQ to get it.
>>18115652you'll make a great christfag when you grow up, the appeal to authority is strong.
