(urth) (no subject)

[Jeff Wilson]

brunians at brunians.org wrote:
>> [Jefferson] continued to own slaves, to keep men made by that same
>> Creator from their liberty and their pursuit of happiness for *fifty
>> years* after he wrote those words. Who could take such a moral criminal
>> seriously?
> 
> Books have been written about this. All I will say at this time is that I
> am satisfied that Jefferson's conduct was mediated by necessity.

Why can you take Jefferson's word seriously enough to determine that his 
necessity was valid, but dismiss Rosseau out of hand? If Rosseau came 
out and admitted later that he had no good reason to to get rid of ths 
babies, and it was a bad bad thing, acknowledging the moral crime, he's 
still unworthy of creedence? Isn't that a double standard piled atop a 
perverse moral incentive?

>>> I have no idea what you mean by 'native title'. Perhaps you will choose
>>> to enlighten me: in any case I wish you joy of your superior knowledge.
> 
>> briefly, that native peoples can retain an interest in the land that
>> survives redistribution by colonizing polities.
> 
> I believe that they have treaty rights, which should be enforced.

What about the ones that were driven off their land without the pretense 
of a treaty?

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >