From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2002 - 17:17:45 MST
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 01:13:39PM -0500, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> Sure, having the force to resist the government hasn't always worked
> but depending on the good will of the other fellow not to impose force upon
> you is a real loser.
> Besides I find your examples amazing:
What's amazing? You said armed resistance was needed to keep "the pols" in
line. I gave a bunch of easy examples of where "the pols", i.e. the central
government, crushed resistance, or failed to do so only because of outside
intervention. It's what central governments are for, monopoly on force and
all that.
> 4. Where the Indians often had insufficient force to resist the onslought of
> the more powerful Europeans. If you really feel the pain you seem to and you
> truly believe the European conduct was inexcusable I can put you in touch
The European? The American conduct. The European governments often had more
humane policies than any colonists on the ground wanted to enforce. And the
Cherokee didn't get screwed over by Europeans.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:02 MST