He’s made that claim before on other threads, that the reason they rebelled doesn’t matter. Claiming that because there is a natural right to rebellion you can’t examine why someone is rebelling. As you have so elequontly pointed out, the founding fathers didn’t think so.
I mean there is a natural right to self-defense. But if I shoot someone in the head and I claim I was scared for my life. And this person had no weapon and hadnt made a threatening move at me, my claim of self-defense is going to be laughed at.
If I shoot someone in the head that has a loaded weapon pointed at me, my claim to self-defense will be much more believable.
Get it right. "Natural right to *INDEPENDENCE*."
As you have so elequontly pointed out, the founding fathers didn’t think so.
He has not "so eloquently" pointed this out, because it is clearly incorrect factually. As Franklin said, "One of the greatest tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts. "
The founders put no conditions on the right to independence. They listed their "causes" as a courtesy, and they clearly tell you they are only listing their causes out of "respect for the opinions of mankind."
One is not required to respect the opinions of mankind in order to exercise a fundamental right. One does not have to explain one's reasons for wanting to disassociate from people whom they saw as exploiting them.