As for your understanding of Political Philosophic terms, you are sorely lacking. According to the ancients there was no such thing as a Republic. And most certainly, a Democracy could fold into a Tyranny. According to Plato in his account of regimes in his work Republic, Democracy becomes Tyranny. A democracy is lacking in virtue and prides itself on the equality of it’s citizens. Oddly enough, democracy is also the one regime with the most citizens. If you want, Citizen is defined by Aristotle as one who can share in the rule of the city. The Democrat’s son becomes a Tyrant because his desires are not tempered. A tyrant properly speaking is not a dictator as you propose, but one who rules for their own self interest.

A dictator by contrast, according to the ancients, was one who ruled for the sake of the city. Men like Cincinnatus. In ancient Rome when the city was under siege the government would go to a virtuous man and ask that he take control over the city to save and protect it. When the threat was over, the dictator would turn over the power back to the people. A dictator properly speaking rules FOR the sake of the city, not for the sake of their own interest.

Continuing on our journey, you say there is no word for when the Republican government betrays it’s people..it is called Tyranny or Despotic. From the ancients to the Federalists they all understood this very basic concept that seems to escape you. Rome is a great example of what I am talking about. After the defeat of the Tarquin Kings, Rome established a Republican government. For hundreds of years that Republican government ruled over Rome until Julius Caesar, became the fist man to bring his army into the city. He was named Dictator for Life and upon his assassination Rome was ruled by tyrants. You cannot tell me that the Emperors of Rome were not tyrants, that they did not rule for their own self interest. Men like Caligula and Nero were not virtuous men.

I never said Jesus came to accept religion as usual, nor was he the first feminist. If you are again unsure, look into the past. Romulus and Remus, the brothers who found Rome were saved by a she-wolf. It was a woman who was ultimately responsible for the creation of the Roman Republic: her name was Lucretia. As for Gandhi admiring Jesus, I hate to break the news to you but Gandhi also admired the Nazis as well. Jesus included women, but there was not a woman who was an Apostle. And why are we bringing up sexism? I never claimed Jesus excluded women. I’m simply stating that women have traditionally never been allowed to be Priests..except in ancient Rome and Greeks..opps I proved you wrong again about Jesus being the first feminist.

Proves what point? You have three choices, over throw the existing government, leave the country or get over it. Secessionists are cry babies, you don’t have the balls to do what the Declaration states is our obligation when government becomes despotic and want to play rebel when you don’t like something. If there are unjust laws, then it means that the regime is unjust. You can’t love certain parts and hate others when it comes to government. If, therefore, you are right then the only solution according to our Declaration of Independence is to throw off such government and to institute new guards for our future security.

Finally, so you are saying that we should have continued letting slavery exist because the North had no more moral authority than the South to end it? Sure Jesus said, “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.” But he also said to the criminal next to him on the cross, who believed he and the other criminal should be crucified, “For you today shall be with me and my Father in Heaven.” The same Bible that teaches us to turn the other cheek and to love our neighbors as ourselves also commands, “For if man sheds the blood of man, than by man let his blood be shed, for man was made in the imagine of God.” Based on your comments, we have no moral authority to do anything because we are all depraved sinners.

You are also using the dictionary a little too liberally with the word tyranny, which is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator, and not a republican government, even though the latter becomes even worse than a tyranny in time. In truth, there is absolutely no dictionary word for the betrayal of a republican government of its popular constituents. There is only a word which enphasises the abusive relation governments, run by criminals, have always had towards moral and just men from time of Socrates onwards.

You are also mistaken with the belief that Jesus came to accept religion as usual, including the unwarranted sexism often associated with religion, because the evidence is quite the opposite. The fact that Jesus even allowed a woman to be the first person to witness the resurrection, women whose witness amounted back then to little more than nothing legally-speaking, shows Jesus was probably the first feminist in history, and he rubbed it in the face of religious men every chance he got! The Christianity you describe is in fact a form Pauline Christianity, and has absolutely nothing to do with what Jesus taught. Even Gandhi admired Jesus but didn’t admire his followers for that very reason.

A federal government which has kept the effects of slavery alive well into the 21st century had no moral authority to judge the South, and/or the slavery that people in the North practiced as well. Actually, the fact they even practiced slavery in America, and that it is still alive today despite appearances, proves just how morally bankrupt the US government has always been.

I also enjoyed your response to taxation, especially when it amounts to half or more of a person’s total wages, and absolutely unearned capital gains are not taxed in the same way. If all a person can do if he believes he is overtaxed and underpaid is to leave the country, that only further proves my point that not only we have excessive taxation, but we also don’t have excessive representation. What obligation does government in the US have then except to prevent the just taxation of the well-to-do, overfed, and care-free?

Besides that, as the meditation below shows, we really don’t have a right to leave either, just as a slave doesn’t have a right to leave his/her master. You too could learn something from a nine-year-old child:

http://5w.posterous.com/you-can-learn-a-lot-from-a-nine-year-old

Lincoln did not attempt to mass execute anyone like any genocidal dictator in history and I beg you to provide proof of your allegations against the President.

I agree, a Father does not have authority to murder his child. However, that doesn’t relate at all to the issue of Secession. The Catholic Church didn’t up and decide no women Priests, the Orthodox Church doesn’t allow it and neither does Judaism that was in existence at the time of Christ. Islam doesn’t allow for women Priests either. So I don’t quite get where you get your illogical history.

As for protecting property rights…we consent to taxation by being citizens of this Country. I find it funny how many ignorant people out there complain about something they willingly submit to. If you don’t like it move out! I can promise you that no other country on this planet does a better job than we do at protecting property rights.

People like you have never observed anything. When a people are betrayed by their government it is called Tyranny! The Declaration of Independence says it all, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” What the South was crying about was the fact that the North refused to support the Federal Fugitive Slave Law by returning slaves to their Southern masters. In fact, in the South Carolina Declaration of Secession it never once mentions that the Federal government was trampling upon their basic rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They never once say that the Federal Government was preventing States Rights. It only says that they seceded for one basic reason: the North hated slavery.

I guess a basic history class would be too much to ask for you to take. As for Theology and Politics; ONLY through Political Association can man achieve his true happiness.

States that don’t have the power to secede, also don’t have the power to unite. In fact, US states have even seceded from each other within the unholy union throughout US history. The original 13 colonies today actually constitute the full or partial territories of 18 states. There was nothing sacred or static about the integrity of the states themselves that made up the union. For Native Americans, only tribes existed, and the land was everyone’s, and thus it wasn’t even seen as divided in any way.

The United States itself was maintained, in the end, by the use of force, far more force than was constitutionally or legally permitted, in fact. If this is legitimate, then it is legitimate tyranny, and there is no such thing. Lincoln today would have been treated no different than Milošević. They both were tyrants, and both almost succeeded in committing genocide.

A father doesn’t have absolute, unquestionable rights over his children, even the right to kill them, as a father had through Roman law. Except for a few things that come from Justinian I, including that legal quantum leap that is called today the Public Trust Doctrine, Roman law is fundamentally primitive and more barbaric than the Huns, and in fact the same law is still used today to spuriously justify priesthoods made of men only. The Roman Catholic Church would have you believe that it was Christ that wanted a male-only priesthood, when in fact it was (pagan) Roman law which excluded women from holding any public responsibility, and Christ himself said to give to Caesar that which belonged to Caesar (man’s law), and to God that which belonged to God (God’s law), clearly stating that the two had nothing in common with each other.

The reason why nature itself is in more or less in a state of equilibrium, is because the holistic and the atomistic forces, the syntropy and the entropy, even religion and science balance each other.

Also, government does not define or protect the right of property. Government in fact does the very opposite all the time today by taxation that is almost never in the general public’s best interest; by creating debt with entities that should not exercise any sovereignty upon a nation’s currency (and banks do, and they even have the license to make money out of thin air, but for some strange reason don’t also create the interest in the same manner); by robbing Peter to order to pay Paul (and while Peter is a natural person, Paul isn’t even a natural person in most cases today, but a corporation!); by eminent domain violations; and by violating the Public Trust Doctrine and impeding the Homestead Principle through supernational entities that have the interests of the citizenry even less at heart than the individual states.

People like you have never observed that when a person betrays his government he is called a traitor. However, for some strange reason when a government betrays its people, and commits a far greater crime, there is no term in the dictionary that describes that. I say, how convenient for tyrants! I say, how come Webster missed that one?