|
Baby DRO circling the neighbourhood in an icecream truck, seeing who is grown-up enough for self ownership.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:So basically, there are different degrees/types of libertarians, but past a certain point being libertarian absolutely requires ignoring history, and for that matter ignoring the present. The (usually ignored) response to a huge portion of liberterians' proposals is, "We already tried that. We (sort of) stopped because people died." The model of anarcho-capitalism endorsed by jrod is interesting because it at least purports to exist completely outside of historical circumstance. It doesn't learn from the past because the past is irrelevant to its deductions. Sure, jrod may bring up a historical point from time to time, but that doesn't actually matter with respect to the theoretical drift of what he's advocating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Obviously, charitable organizations will provide free and ample injections of steroids and bovine growth hormones to infants and toddlers. The quicker the children bulk up the sooner they can fend for themselves while becoming more marketable towards people hiring manual labor. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I think it's the constant arguments about coercion and aggression framing the argument. If I slip into thinking like that, then the bleak conclusion is that while humans hate being coerced, they love being coercive. Even if they don't have power now, even the meekest person is wishing for an opportunity to kick the poo poo out of someone. Really, it's a misapplication of the word coercion. It seems like in their minds, utilizing any negative consequence is coercion, unless they're explaining why you must join a DRO or be exiled from the community. Yes. You CAN be killed for not paying your taxes, but it takes a real long time to go from not paying your taxes to getting killed. And yes, utilizing negative consequences is a way everyone enforces behavior. I mean, were my parents coercing me when they told me to be quiet, or I would be sent to my room with no desert? That's it! I'm going to DEFOO for my parents taking away MY RIGHT to play Nintendo when I was 7! That will teach them... ...that I'm an ungrateful brat who lives in a fantasy world and wants to construct a society around my misunderstanding of basic human interactions. "Coercion" is basically when you choose to stop reasoning with someone and to start impacting their lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Well generally we (and by we I mean "the overwhelming majority of the world, with the exception of remarkably state-weak third world hellholes") don't KILL people for not paying their taxes. We seize their assets to make up for their refusal to chip in to keeping society as a whole running. They only get killed if they start getting violent about it- and hell even then they frequently don't get killed, as can be seen by Cliven Bundy's racist filth who are catered to and coddled because they are such good white Christian souls (yes I know it's a bit tangential but it's still an actual point dammit). One wonders what happens to the Cliven Bundies of the world in Libertopia. They commit grievous aggression as a matter of course, on racial, religious, and economic grounds. We know without doubt they would continue to commit aggressions, especially against those they see as ethnic inferiors, and that they possess significant firepower to do so. What DROs would dare go up against them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:So, those upper brackets that go for socialism, why do they support it? Or to flip it, the lower brackets that went the other way, why did they do that? Who knows? Upbringing and religion can sometimes make a difference, someone may just dislike Conlin or like Sawant, or they could just have lots of (or very little) empathy. Propaganda also works, which is why people who grew up in the Cold War are less likely to support socialism than are kids who never lived under St. Reagan. But that doesn't change the fact that support for capitalism increases with wealth and being in the majority and support for socialism increases with poverty and being a person of color.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:Well generally we (and by we I mean "the overwhelming majority of the world, with the exception of remarkably state-weak third world hellholes") don't KILL people for not paying their taxes. We seize their assets to make up for their refusal to chip in to keeping society as a whole running. They only get killed if they start getting violent about it- and hell even then they frequently don't get killed, as can be seen by Cliven Bundy's racist filth who are catered to and coddled because they are such good white Christian souls (yes I know it's a bit tangential but it's still an actual point dammit). Any DRO that wants to obtain some fine cattle from DRO-less non-people? Or to simply run a live fire training exercise with live targets?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Really, it's a misapplication of the word coercion. It seems like in their minds, utilizing any negative consequence is coercion, unless they're explaining why you must join a DRO or be exiled from the community. Yes. You CAN be killed for not paying your taxes, but it takes a real long time to go from not paying your taxes to getting killed. And yes, utilizing negative consequences is a way everyone enforces behavior. I mean, were my parents coercing me when they told me to be quiet, or I would be sent to my room with no desert? The worst part with the 'barrel of a gun' arguement, is that it is practically meaningless. "If you don't pay your taxes eventually a man will come and arrest you to put you in a cage, and if you resist he will kill you!" On top of being a ridiculous oversimplification it ignores the fact that under our current view of property, your taxes aren't your money. Your taxes belong to the government. You attempting to do that would be you attempting to steal from the government, and by extension, everyone else in your City/County/State/Country. Its is what I find most frustrating about talking with Jrodefeld. Since he is stemming everything from a warped sense of 'Logically derived universal morality' talking to him about basic concepts like taxation not being theft is like talking to a southerner about why slavery is wrong. His moral grounding is so divorced from what we see, and arguably from reality, that it is almost impossible to talk to him. This leaves us in a really lovely position. We can point out the myriad flaws in specific policy, which go ignored because that policy is based on the logic of pure universal morals and therefore we must be wrong, or we can talk about morals, but that is like trying to talk a christian out of believing in god.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Any DRO that wants to obtain some fine cattle from DRO-less non-people? Or to simply run a live fire training exercise with live targets? They might as well be their own DRO. We know they have military and near-military grade firepower at their disposal- we've seen them surround federal officials with high powered rifles and other such weapons leveled with their heads. Attacking them is not profitable. Who will take them on? You'd need significantly superior equipment to be able to fight them without fear of losing your soldiers- y'know like the US military or something- and even then sending out that manpower with proper logistical and armored support would be quite a costly investment!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Caros posted:The worst part with the 'barrel of a gun' arguement, is that it is practically meaningless. This is why I suggest focusing on technology and other "hard" topics because as soon as you start debating the meaning of aggression and whatnot with him you're conceding the point that he has no plans for toilets flushing, roads existing, etc etc. You might come away feeling intellectually superior but unless you force him to talk about something he has to actually think about you're just going to end up right back here over and over again. Now if you can actually get him to do so is still an open ended question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
The Book of Jrod posted:And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into goldshares, and their spears into troy ounce scales: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Reverend Catharsis posted:They might as well be their own DRO. We know they have military and near-military grade firepower at their disposal- we've seen them surround federal officials with high powered rifles and other such weapons leveled with their heads. Attacking them is not profitable. Who will take them on? You'd need significantly superior equipment to be able to fight them without fear of losing your soldiers- y'know like the US military or something- and even then sending out that manpower with proper logistical and armored support would be quite a costly investment! Uh, pretty sure every DRO will have military firepower, since, you know, that's what they'll (in)effectively be. And I'm really going to need to see a comparative financial analysis of the sale of the cattle and other battle loot compared to costs incurred before you go declaring an action unprofitable Reverend. Just because you say something is unprofitable doesn't make it true just by your assertion alone.  Also lol at the idea that you need a group on the level of the US MILITARY to defeat the pack of disorganized morons that were the militias at the Bundy Ranch. The only reason those idiots aren't dead was the presence of human shields and the unwillingness of our law enforcement to kill white people in front of the national media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Uh, pretty sure every DRO will have military firepower, since, you know, that's what they'll (in)effectively be. And I'm really going to need to see a comparative financial analysis of the sale of the cattle and other battle loot compared to costs incurred before you go declaring an action unprofitable Reverend. Just because you say something is unprofitable doesn't make it true just by your assertion alone. If we assume that the DRO has a military and that they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence what is the difference between the DRO and the State?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:Considering the pay-as-you-go nature of Social Security and Medicare, how would you unravel these programs in your search for libertopia? Currently there are roughly sixty million people on social security alone. As clarified above, Social Security accounts for a huge amount of the income for those sixty million. Oh since you mentioned that, how do libertarians deal with the pay-as-you-go issue for SS? If you give people the option to not pay into the system, then the people currently on SS get way less money. How the hell does is that supposed to work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
karthun posted:If we assume that the DRO has a military and that they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence what is the difference between the DRO and the State? DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER The difference is that you can choose to be part of that DRO or another DRO, and can shop around for the DRO you like best. Harder to do with countries tied strictly to geographic territory and ethnicity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
I can almost guarantee you that DROs would be tied to geographic territory, and in many cases ethnicity as well. Think telecom companies, or ISPs. And you can shop around for a State that you like right now, if you are rich enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Oh since you mentioned that, how do libertarians deal with the pay-as-you-go issue for SS? If you give people the option to not pay into the system, then the people currently on SS get way less money. How the hell does is that supposed to work? Nothing works in libertopia. Nothing. OwlBot 2000 posted:The difference is that you can choose to be part of that DRO or another DRO, and can shop around for the DRO you like best. Harder to do with countries tied strictly to geographic territory and ethnicity. So you're saying we need a nation... without borders? A place where people can be what they're best at without interference an... Outer Heaven? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
karthun posted:If we assume that the DRO has a military and that they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence what is the difference between the DRO and the State? Flagons of mead
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I find it hard to believe that in this age of information, with smartphones and the internet constantly evolving, that a lack of information would be a major problem. That is an extremely naive viewpoint. Even if you were right that the Internet gives everyone all of the information that they need to make a well-informed decision (you're wrong), not everyone is going to make a rational decision. Here are some examples of people making irrational decisions despite the Internet providing them with access to plenty of accurate information 1) The anti-GMO movement 2) The anti-vaccine movement 3) Bitcoiners The existence of good information is not a guarantee that people will make rational choices. There are two reasons for this: people are naturally irrational, and the Internet is full of incorrect information.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Jrod, have you considered that corporations and DROs could replicate their capture of the state by making agreements with each other instead? This simple problem inherent to capitalism was noted as early as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, and no part of it requires a state, nor is there a market mechanism that fixes it outside of pure wishful thinking. It is simply in the best interests of corporations to collude with competitors in order to capture markets, and we see them doing so even when the state attempts to prevent it. The recent collusion over wages between Apple, Google, etc, is a direct example of this, As a whole, it seems as if you assume that the market always produces optimal outcomes, and any failure to do so is the fault of the state. Can you prove this assertion using empirical evidence? As an empiricist, I'm entirely unimpressed by logical arguments which contradict observed reality. It took over a thousand years to resolve Xeno's Paradox, but the world hardly stopped moving meanwhiles. E: to be fair, I am impressed by how Xeno's Paradox identified a problem in mathematics which eventually lead to the development of the calculus, but its utility lay entirely in the tension between the argument and observed reality. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually hey, how do children who are abused by their owners get protection? The owners obviously aren't going to be paying premiums on their behalf, so even if a DRO were to hear about it, it would obviously be a poor business decision to spend resources on an investigation without compensation, especially since it could involve a war with the child-owner's DRO, which would of course support the owner's right to use force to keep trespassers away from his property. Charity or something, who cares the free market will take care of everything Alternate answer: it wouldn't be in a parent's best interest to abuse their child (why would you damage your own property???) so child abuse wouldn't exist anymore if we just abolished the state Alternate alternate answer: every DRO will have a section devoted to making sure that people don't abuse children, so if you abuse children then you've broken your DRO contract. You'll have to become a rogue citizen, unable to so much as cross the street, unable to even eat because no one will serve you. The DRO will know that you broke your contract thanks to the voluntarily installed surveillance system installed in every home and on every street corner. The child can then voluntarily become a prostitute and bing bang boom, child abuse is a solved problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Why would a free range child stay with abusive parents when Baby DRO has ice cream, puppies, video games, all free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Valhalla DRO provides only the highest quality mixtures of gunpowder and cocaine to its war orphans! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld (and other libertarians itt) do you think Praxeology is a useful way to gain knowledge about how humans behave in the real world? Is a model of reality based on praxeology more reliable than one based on empiricism? If so, why do you believe this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Strawman posted:jrodefeld (and other libertarians itt) do you think Praxeology is a useful way to gain knowledge about how humans behave in the real world? You've got it backwards, praxeology assumes humans behave a particular way and draws conclusions based on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:43
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
In conjunction with my questions regarding empiricism, I am curious as to how a libertarian society would prevent the decline of social mobility and the replacement of entrepreneurs with rentiers due to the formation and consolidation of elite social networks based on inherited advantages in education, wealth, and contacts. If you vaguely mumble about competition and the market or the evils of the state, I will loving hound your magical thinking into the ground until you give me evidence. Give me evidence, and I will be rather impressed, although naturally critical unless you really hit this one out of the stadium. The subject is well-studied, so you should have lots to work with. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Wouldn't DROs enforce their rules via violence or the threat of violence? Wouldn't the requirement to sign on to a DRO effectively be enforced by the threat of violence? Example - if you don't follow the rules or become a danger to your neighbors, wouldn't the DRO have the authority to take you out? Or could they give the green light to another DRO as if to wash their hands of you? If taxation is theft at the barrel of gun, everything in our society, even driving and walking across streets and handling food and hiring workers, is enforced at the same level. Your envisioned society would be no different unless people could not be killed for any reason, which would even rule out self-defense. Am I understanding this right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is so stupid. How do you think the rich get rich? The unjust rich are those that use the power of the State to expropriate the citizens, while the just rich are those who trade voluntarily on the market and satisfy consumers. By taking away that State and rejecting the legitimacy of the use of force, the wealthy gain wealth through satisfying consumers. Unless the rich have a steady stream of new profits and revenue, then their wealth will soon be consumed and they will fall into the middle class or even into poverty. If the "rich" all thought they would collude and piss off everyone else then that would be disastrous to their bottom line. You're suggesting that DROs would be large, necessary organizations for continued every day life, but they wouldn't be served by colluding as an oligopoly and exploiting their power over the people who rely on them. I don't think you've addressed how, if the local DROs decided to collude, the middle class would have any way to express their discontent. They would be outgunned and still need a DRO for day to day participation in society, so boycott and force are both unavailable to them. You've also mentioned that collusion would be difficult to hide because a DRO would publish all their books and findings, but this is a description of the 'black box' accounting that was in place in the financial sector leading up to 2008. Without oversight, an organization would be highly incetivized to cook their books, or be frugal in disclosing their assets and investments, etc etc. Even if they're not colluding, the less they publicly announce, the more competitive they would be as closed book accounting leads to market advantages. There are other reasons why the actors in your description aren't acting in their rational self interest, but these two stood out to me and I was hoping you could elaborate. Do you disagree that oligopolies can and do exist, or do you disagree it would only be possible in this scenario for them to exist, and why? Do you disagree that leaving organizations to self-govern in terms of accounting and market manipulation incentizizes them to disclose little and manipulate much, or again, do you only disagree that would be the case in terms of DROs (and why)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Jrodefeld, how do you view the history of the nation state? Was it necessary to have it before we could reach the libertarian view in its maturity, or would be be better off without some of the most iconic and first states, such as Rome, who went all in with public spending, citizenship and concepts such as laws, administration and bureaucracy where participation was not voluntary, but it was forced that you belonged to the nation and could not simply just opt-out? I am trying one more time to quote myself. I'd appreciate if Jrodefeld would answer this since I am legimitately interested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Alternate answer: it wouldn't be in a parent's best interest to abuse their child (why would you damage your own property???) so child abuse wouldn't exist anymore if we just abolished the state What about profitable forms of abuse like loving/whoring out the child, or forcing him/her to sew clothing or pick tomatoes 14 hours a day? While forcibly preventing the child from exercising his right of self-ownership in running away. And why limit that to children. Wouldn't Jefferson DRO have a pretty big incentive to relegalize African slavery? They'd have plenty of customers, it's not like someone who was kidnapped from the African coast would have the assets to hire a DRO to attack the South and spring them, and since jrodefeld has already told us the database of all DRO subscribers are public information, the second any black man in the south misses a payment, he'd be free game to be captured and sold. And they would start losing their coverage, because the more southern white people support Jefferson DRO, the more expensive it'd be to insure yourself and your family against lynchings and slave catchers. There might be a few companies like John Brown DRO that are willing to fight an unprofitable war against slavery, but they can't prevail against the Slave Power, and of course there's no coercive Yankee state that can print greenbacks and draft people to fight an illegitimate war and abrogate the private property rights of plantation owners in favor of some sectionalist crusade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Why wait until they miss a payment when you could just unilaterally cancel their subscription and arrest them for initiating force by being on Jefferson DRO property without permission? The penalty for which, in the case of a black person, would be to be lifelong indenture, which would be auctioned to the highest bidder. Non-black customers would feel no more threatened by this than poor whites did in the South. Or more easily, simply declare that your DRO considers black people to be property. Actually, though, any DRO or any other corporation could do this to anyone as long as they owned the land a customer occupies. Anyone on property without permission is, after all, initiating the use of force. And as the most powerful organizations, they inevitably would use their resources to acquire as much land as possible. The outcome would be literally just a state, with DRO fees and/or rent taking the place of taxation for all but the most powerful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Why wait until they miss a payment when you could just unilaterally cancel their subscription and arrest them for initiating force by being on Jefferson DRO property without permission? Presumably black people would not be doing business with a DRO that considers them legally property. Jefferson DRO could start paying off their DROs with kickbacks from the slave auctions though, but eventually that would be unnecessary as the relative poverty of black Americans (remember jrod categorically refuses to redistribute wealth to make Libertarian Year Zero an even playing field) would quickly make the market in protecting them too small to be worth the cost of a war against wealthy slaveowners and their white supporters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
I don't know if Jrodefeld has any thoughts on this, but I imagine it was in the shop owners' rational self interest to lace their noodles with opium: http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-noodle-shop-laces-noodles-with-opium-to-keep-customers-coming-back-20140927-10mvsl.html I'm still at a loss how someone could think it's hard or unrewarding to 'cheat' at capitalism, putting opium in your noodles in a poorly regulated society would give you a huge advantage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I am trying one more time to quote myself. I'd appreciate if Jrodefeld would answer this since I am legimitately interested. This is also a really good post, were nation states a necessary precursor to a libertarian ideal or were they a parasitic growth that derailed natural libertarian progress. I'd also like to hear the thoughts from Jrod or others on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:'m still at a loss how someone could think it's hard or unrewarding to 'cheat' at capitalism, putting opium in your noodles in a poorly regulated society would give you a huge advantage. It would until everyone else does the same thing and children eat Cocaine Bits for breakfast washed down with Coca-Cola (with real cocaine!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Presumably black people would not be doing business with a DRO that considers them legally property. Jefferson DRO could start paying off their DROs with kickbacks from the slave auctions though, but eventually that would be unnecessary as the relative poverty of black Americans (remember jrod categorically refuses to redistribute wealth to make Libertarian Year Zero an even playing field) would quickly make the market in protecting them too small to be worth the cost of a war against wealthy slaveowners and their white supporters. Except that according the principles we are working with, by being on someone's property without permission, they are in the wrong. I suppose another DRO might be able to use whatever leverage they have to modify the sentence, but their ability to do so would rest entirely on their leverage with Jefferson DRO. Much like trying to extradite a citizen accused of a crime in another country, the party in whose territory the person is being held has an inherent advantage. My larger point was more about the fact that land is a finite resource, and control over it would give an organization power identical to that of a state. The only difference would be that the land's owner would have absolute power over anyone else on the land, which they would use to extract rents. As the most valuable resource, it would be held by the richest and most powerful. In other words, the non-aggression principal, as defined here, would simply lead to more powerful states. These states would be controlled by a class of rentiers with absolute power. So basically, another version of the argument that libertarianism would simply be a convoluted means of returning to aristocratic feudalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:These states would be controlled by a class of rentiers with absolute power. So basically, another version of the argument that libertarianism would simply be a convoluted means of returning to aristocratic feudalism. That's true, feudalism eliminates all coercion from society, because once all of England is the private property of one man (parceled out to vassals with easements requiring them to supply armies and obey the primary landowner's law of course), everyone who lives there is voluntarily agreeing to fight in Norman DRO's army and live under Norman DRO law, or they're perfectly free to leave and find unowned land somewhere to mix their labor with. Now sure sure, CEO Stephen de Blois of Norman DRO may have inherited the company from his great-great-grandfather who acquired the land by forcible expropriation of the local inhabitants and killed or drove off any who resisted, but that was a long time ago, and it's impossible to say now how much of Stephen's wealth was the fruits of aggression and how much was just the fair business value of the protection and law enforcement services offered by Norman DRO, and anyway we can logically deduce that if he isn't earning his wealth then better businessmen will quickly take advantage of this and outcompete him so no need to infringe on CEO Stephen's property rights to all of the land in England and Wales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Strawman posted:jrodefeld (and other libertarians itt) do you think Praxeology is a useful way to gain knowledge about how humans behave in the real world? Is a model of reality based on praxeology more reliable than one based on empiricism? If so, why do you believe this? what's praxelogy
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:21
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Now sure sure, CEO Stephen de Blois of Norman DRO may have inherited the company from his great-great-grandfather who acquired the land by forcible expropriation of the local inhabitants and killed or drove off any who resisted, but that was a long time ago, and it's impossible to say now how much of Stephen's wealth was the fruits of aggression and how much was just the fair business value of the protection and law enforcement services offered by Norman DRO  quote:The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:25
|
|
