And they all started out and made it to the period where they could try to live by those standards, by fighting a war and killing a lot of people who wanted to stop them. Every single one. Our founding fathers did not give the Redcoats due process of law to protect their right to life and liberty. They gave them the bayonet. And both sides understood that no matter which principles either side were fighting for, it was a war and the principles that would win would be the principles of the side that killed more of the other. Rule number one in war is Win. There is no rule number two. Every other rule comes after the war. Including quibbling about morals and principles and who looks good and had the moral high ground.
Our founding fathers did not give the Redcoats due process of law to protect their right to life and liberty.
One did: John Adams, who represented the Redcoats who instigated the Boston Massacre. Because the rule of law matters he defended them.
So while I agree that the friend/enemy distinction needs to be drawn, there are traditional, civilizationally-important controls around the violence which threatens to be unleashed. There are forms of process and warrants for actions, especially violent actions, which are to be taken against your enemies-- and this is baked into the American Tradition. If you resort to unrestrained violence, you undermine your Causus Belli. You lose the support you'd have if you fought a Just War.
And they all started out and made it to the period where they could try to live by those standards, by fighting a war and killing a lot of people who wanted to stop them. Every single one. Our founding fathers did not give the Redcoats due process of law to protect their right to life and liberty. They gave them the bayonet. And both sides understood that no matter which principles either side were fighting for, it was a war and the principles that would win would be the principles of the side that killed more of the other. Rule number one in war is Win. There is no rule number two. Every other rule comes after the war. Including quibbling about morals and principles and who looks good and had the moral high ground.
One did: John Adams, who represented the Redcoats who instigated the Boston Massacre. Because the rule of law matters he defended them.
So while I agree that the friend/enemy distinction needs to be drawn, there are traditional, civilizationally-important controls around the violence which threatens to be unleashed. There are forms of process and warrants for actions, especially violent actions, which are to be taken against your enemies-- and this is baked into the American Tradition. If you resort to unrestrained violence, you undermine your Causus Belli. You lose the support you'd have if you fought a Just War.
Sic pacem, para bellum.