Actually the Revolution was mainly the realization by about 1/3 of the citizens that, as ALL Englishmen understood their rights as subjects to the King, the colonies had their own legislatures for about 200 years and they would not submit to a new development to be subservient to the British Parliament..... the only country to succesfully have a revolution such as ours which resulted in a people (mostly) at liberty has a language which allows a distinction between freedom and liberty. Spanish, and French, do not have this distinction; and, when you look at the rapid swings between tyranny and chaos experienced in the French revolution and many of the South American revolutions, I can't help but wonder how much of this is due to the difficulty in communicating this idea. ....
Also, note that while the founders talk about liberty extensively, freedom is only rarely mentioned.
The change of mindset they owed no allegiance to the a man who called himself a king was a huge spark. Many like Adams were initially called a traitor.Actually the Revolution was mainly the realization by about 1/3 of the citizens that, as ALL Englishmen understood their rights as subjects to the King, the colonies had their own legislatures for about 200 years and they would not submit to a new development to be subservient to the British Parliament.
As Englishmen we adhered to English common law - property rights, rule of law, power of the purse being held by house of burgesses.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
+1I believe the original request for help has been fulfilled. So long as the conversation can remain reasonably civil, I find these sorts of discussions to be where a great deal of learning can be obtained by those interested. If the conversation turns uncivil, it will quickly lose value.
It has my vote.I now suspect that this thread is the record holder for any thread in the history of OCDO for going the furthest off tract from the OP and simultaneously the furthest from the topic of OC, with both being accomplished in the fewest number of posts.
It appears that you schooling interfered with you education. What a load of crap. Yelling fire in a movie theater must not be unlawful. If yelling fire injures another where no fire exists then the injured citizen needs to prove harm and seek a redress. The proper role of government is to mediate not mandate. <snip> [/QUOTE]Anyway, informing a cop you are packing is asking for trouble.....don't talk to cops.<snip> Oh, and as a side note, since I believe equivocation is the largest long-term threat to America, liberty isn't quite what some of you seem to think. Liberty, as the founders meant it when writing, and as we should be using it today, is specifically the lack of restraint on actions. Specifically the lack of prior restraint on actions, by which I mean that knowing that attacking someone will likely land you in jail does not qualify as a restraint in this case. People always bring up the issue of yelling fire in a theatre, but that actually proves the point quite nicely. Those who would limit liberty should be arguing to gag people as they enter the theatre in order to prevent them from yelling fire later. To the remark 'you can't yell fire in a theatre', the answer is 'Yes, yes you can.' This is opposed to freedom, which is a state of exemption from control, both prior to and after an action. You are not free to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but you are (and should be) at liberty to do so. Freedom should be limited, as we all should be responsible for our actions (and freedom is antithetical to responsibility), however liberty should be unlimited.
I agree some are not connecting the dots.Neither contributing anything to the original topic, nor to the current (off topic) direction of the thread. But it does occur to me that a meta discussion about OT threads is itself OT, both to the original topic and to the tangentially related topic of the origin of rights.