If an American State, subsidized by Foreign Gov’t and Foreign Fed Bankers, violate an American individuals rights to self-rule (trampling Rothbard’s non-aggression principal) would the Central US Gov’t have an obligation to step in? Or do State Rights and Sovereignty precede the individuals liberty?
(((The answers to this question will allow me to ask a more profound question which I will submit after a few rounds of replies. Some of you might see where I’m going with this. It’s more than just, “well if the State will not protect it’s member’s basic rights and is allowing foreign debt / intervention policy to dictate individual sovereignty then ‘yes’ the central gov’t should step in?” The question above begs the question “if we are seeking individualism, where are the limits to state-rights, and are we so blind and anti-centralized fed gov that we ignore the abdication / provocation of the central-state gov?”)))
Keep your answer on the first two questions above and use the near-above 2nd paragraph to further your thinking.
I will pose my deeper question below (after a few rounds of answers).
First things first. It’s not an “if”, everyone’s rights are constantly trampled by the status quo political order. Only an extremely restricted and contradictory sense of “rights” could be said to be compatible with the status quo order. I mean, I can hold up a sign in front of the local courthouse saying “The Pope is a pig sent from hell, God is a lie, and America is evil”, sure, and I won’t be put in an Iron Maiden and burnt at the stake. So I have the right to wave signs with unsightly rants on them. But I can’t sell anything I own, even in barter, without reporting on my tax return (at least, it’s illegal even though people do it all the time). As a teenager pushing my lawnmower around neighborhoods selling lawn cuts, I was breaking tax law.
So, our most basic rights are being wantonly trampled on a daily basis while the propagandists in Washington DC go on FOX News and tell everyone they’re “free” because they are free to go join the Westboro Baptist protests if they like. And it is the Federal government who is the primary violator of these basic rights. The rights violations of local States are small-fry by comparison.
Your question is incoherent. The Federal Reserve - which exists at the behest of the Federal government - is responsible for the foreign debt issues. China can’t just put you in debt. Your government had to first betray you by issuing the debt to China in your name through the auspices of the Federal Reserve.
I think you’ve had similar arguments so you are asuming a certain “level” of thinking behind the question.
Your argument is fallacious – to say State Tyranny is less than Central is to ignore Slavery, Indian Land Theft, Reservationism, Jim Crow – etc etc. State’s and Central Authority have always colluded in this country. US Navy was used to protect transatlantic slavery, wars were enacted against Indians to ensure land theft - genocide - and relocation (etc). There has never been a period of 100% State Sovereignty.
From the beginning there was lobbying and jockeying for force-agency monopolies. States engaged in entangling alliances with France and England (House of Rothschild) to support Slavery and Secession.
Or do you think the 8% Ruling Master Class of the South were free-market entrepreneurs, hahaha.
Jefferson went along way towards aiding France in reclaiming Haiti from the slaves (open revolution) – there’s open hypocrisy for you; an American Revolutionary hanging an American Revolutionary. Even worse Jefferson went way beyond Constitutional scope and State Sovereignty in the Louisiana Purchase (naturalizing foreign citizenry – phew).
My argument is not against Jefferson nor any Founder. My question is very very simple, and the answer is even more simple: “If a State is tyranical and forming foreign alliances against individual liberty then the central gov’t (under the Constitution) has the duty to overthrow said tyranny and entangling alliances.”
Once you are able to give that answer I can then ask a deeper question – if you cannot give it and would rather take me on a semantical journey of which “tyranny would you rather live under, ‘State or Federal’,” then you will miss the exercise.
“Oh Boy” – I was not talking about the Federal Reserve (1913 - Present) – I was talking about Central Gov’t vs State Gov’t and the notion of individualism; which comes first in a free-enterprise?
I appreciate the amateur psychoanalysis but, no, I’m not responding to past discussions, I’m responding to what you wrote. The fact is that all governments in all forms, central or district, are inherently coercive and criminal in nature. To stop a man going about his business and not hurting anyone is a crime, it’s kidnapping or false imprisonment or whatever. Unless you have a gun, uniform and a magical tin badge. It’s superstitious to think that a magical uniform and tin badge make it not a crime anymore when you stop a man going about his business and not hurting anyone. Yet this is the essence of any government. Want to sell apples? Purchase this license first or go to jail. Want to extend your house? Submit an application for inspection before and after or go to jail. Want to ship those widgets across “the border”? Submit to customs and pay “export duties” or go to jail.
These and the uncountable other interferences into peaceful, productive enterprise have one over-arching purpose, to control capital (especially capital flight) and ensure a steady stream of tax revenue. District governments (such as States and Counties) do it on a small scale and the central government does it on a grand scale.
We should not ask the central government to “intervene” into the affairs of a district government, even to “ensure liberty”. Centralization of political power is an unmitigated evil and the intervention excuse is just one among the panoply of excuses made for political centralization. The reality is that government is inherently abusive and the only realistic answer is unlimited secession, cf Hans Hoppe. No one should ever be forced into political union against their will and the only just resolution of political disagreements is to part ways.
Please read this (pp. 335ff) for a detailed discussion of my position (I’m Hoppean on this issue).
Is this only a question for minarchists and beltway libertarians?
States don’t have rights. States are fictional entities. There is no such thing as sovereignty - it’s just a euphemism for ownership of human beings. There’s another word for that, which also begins with an ‘s’. I am not going to debate whether or not you should beat your slaves, or how often - you shouldn’t have slaves. Notwithstanding this fact, let me rephrase your question, so as to further illustrate the problem…
Does a large criminal organisation have a moral or legal duty to intervene to stop crimes by smaller groups of criminals?
Asking for protection from a large criminal organisation is not a good idea. They don’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts - they do it because it removes their competition in terms of extorting from you as much as they possibly can.
Let’s imagine that you’re being abused by the state government of Montana, or something, and you can’t possibly defend yourself… You need Washington to rain down Tomahawk cruise missiles, or whatever it is they do in these situations. If the government of Montana suddenly turned evil, and there was nothing you could do to defend yourself, who are you going to run to when the US Federal Government turns evil?
Yes – I can see now that the question (is too simple for this crowd it stirs “over” thinking and semantical “beltways”). I appreciate your “rephrasing,” the question.
Obviously when Jefferson “purchased” Louisianna he over-stepped his own view on central planning and given that Statists (at the state level) and Statists (at the federal level) needed collusion and monopoly power to enforce Land Theft, Reservationism, Slavery, Transatlantic Slave Trade, Fugitive Slave Laws, on and on and on – Given these realities how then do we base anti-Lincoln sentiment if favor of a “freer” period; should we not hold every period prior to that in contempt of “self-rule.”
Slavery and Reservationism (before and after the Constitution) are antithesis to non-aggression principle every Rothbardian holds dear at a more fundemental level (a causative level) toward in-evitable civil-war.
Meaning you cannot have those “evils” without collusion or “unionized” agreements between Statists (State and Federal levels).
If we know that the period before Lincoln (and central banking) was chalk full of collusion and monopolistic power granting (from central gov’t to state), as slavery, genocide. land theft, and fugitive slave laws would dictate, and the abdication of basic free-enterprise (especially Rothbardian) principles of non-aggression (toward “self-ownership”) between State and Individual; then why do “we” harken back (nostalgically) toward “freer” days, saying “The Founders intended all individuals to be free and that central gov’t will not overstep such and such boundaries” when clearly they did over step – in all ways that are fundamentally important to the individual?
As an example: Lincoln did not think to himself – “I want to kill 600K people” (I’m not a fan of ‘everything’ Lincoln so ignore the temptation) – The South could of observed the Constitution and honored non-aggression; I guess what I’m saying is if we follow the non-aggression principle all the way out we’ll see that slavery of millions is far worse (given the rape and pedophilia alone) then a civil war to end it – “IF” we believe in fundamental Rothbardian principles and if we look honestly at the “real” Founders and ignore their philosophical musing regarding “liberty.”
I think we need to find solutions using todays intelligence and stop justifying our obviously more ethical stance on “liberty” toward what-would-founders-do type thinking.
Those who speak on behalf of Mises and Rothbard should keep their arguments on the present – “harkening” back does nothing more than to create “north-south” or dem-repub perpetual two-sided thinking going on and on.
We cannot solve individualist problems through the collectivizing force of ballot-box-bingo; it is mathematically and empirically impossible to do so. Politics is Lobbying (bribery) and Abdication (voting); how can we gain self-rule through these means?
Then what the hell are you saying or asking? Your language is filled with jargon that you yourself do not seem to understand and which renders your posts incomprehensible to me, at least. Maybe I’m just stupid. Is it not possible to rephrase your question using only words you would use in everyday English (i.e. when speaking to a gas station attendant)? You keep claiming your question is simple but then you keep using jargon that clutters it up. What is “fundamental Rothbardian principles”, for example? This is not obvious. Rothbard wrote a ton. Which specific principles are you referring to?*
Hans Hoppe explicitly blasts Constitutionalism. It’s a farce. “Here, we’ve signed a piece of paper that we alone can interpret and enforce and we promise that we won’t do anything in violation of how we interpret it or else, well there is no else, since we’re certainly not going to impose consequences on ourselves.”
We’re not beltway libertarians here on mises.org, well, most of us aren’t. We leave the “What would John Adams Do?” to the pseudo-libertarians at the Cato Institute.
Maybe it would help if you pointed to a specific example of a specific individual making the specific point that’s bothering you. Otherwise, I have no idea what you’re talking about. It is indisputable that most people were freer 200 years ago in the United States than they are today, in all the ways that count, anyways. You might go to prison for being openly homosexual, which is a symptom of the tyranny of the times, but I wonder how many modern homosexuals would willingly exchange having to live in the closet for actually being able to keep their own goddamn income.
It seems to me that you should spend some more time reading the Mises daily and browsing the archives. The whole message of Rothbardian theory of social change is that change is never brought about within the status quo, it only occurs through paradigm shifts in the opinion-molding class (academics, newsmen, etc.)
Clayton -
*Yes, I meant to end that sentence with a preposition… grammar Nazis can go to hell!
Ah, I don’t disagree with you about historical nostalgia, but I don’t think that’s the point of skeptical revisionism.
The national mythos beatifies ‘Great Men’ like Lincoln. It makes them part of its epic saga. I don’t think it’s out of order to point out the errors in thinking and perception when this occurs.
The Confederate States seemed to be interpreting the constitution the same way it had been interpreted for the previous seven decades. It’s not a document that really enshrines non-aggression as a principle.
On the subject of pedophilia and rape… This was the 19th Century. Many more ‘free’ children would have been subject to terrible physical and sexual abuse within their own families than is the case today - probably most of them would have been subject to abuses that could easily lead to a long prison conviction for the perpetrators today. Obviously not every single family, and the USA would probably have been better than Europe or anywhere else in the world at this point, but still… The evidence is overwhelming. Something in peoples’ psyche made a Great War to end all Wars seem like a good idea.
‘Harkening back’ is silly, I agree, but it’s not silly to show how government is able to justify its authority over people today by distorting the true nature of history.
Are you justifying the Civil War by saying that slavery is worse than war? If that is the case, you are not using the NAP principle consistently, you are using consequentialism… So I would say before even continuing this debate : pick your weapon: consequentialism or NAP
I know that you do not “know” me but no one living in modern times would intelligently say that Slavery is worse than War (in the short-run) – Slavery is War it must always end in bloody uprisings (Haiti) or it must end by Fiat Aggression (civil war) or it could end by the slave-masters saying, “wow we really suck – let’s take Lincoln’s buyout and let these people go.”
I’m NO fan of Corporatism; but “we” (Africans and Indians) are freer today with more opportunity then during Mass Genocide, Land Theft, Broken Treaties, Fugitive Slave Laws, Transatlantic Slave Ships, Mass Rape-Sodomy, Mass Infanticide, Forced Abortions, and Human Cattle Drives (Reservationism).
During Capitalism the above happened.
Capitalism is a Feudalist / Nationalistic Model (same as Communism)
—Puts horror on its own people
Corporatism (fascism) puts the “horror” on other Nations; which is bad, but the “horror” is so spread out it’s more of an existence tax then out-and-out Chattel Slavery. When you pour fascism over nationalists you get opportunistic civil wars, every time. So, I’m not saying corporatism is better than capitalism (chattel slavery - reservationism) but it is for the people living in the continental United States.
Nationalism leads to Fascism
—Capitalism to Corporatism
—Socialism to Nazism
You cannot keep-by-force a nationalistic model; it must either contract towards liberty (ubber-wealthy give up more and more power) or it must expand towards the most contemptible foreign-based tyranny.
Mises model of Consumer-Sovereignty will 100% lead toward an Individualist Society where we have the highest freedoms, a level of freedom un-dreamed of.
We don’t have a word yet for what comes after Fascism – because in the beginning, especially the Corporatist model of it and less the civil war outbreaks (opportunism) the “horror” is far more manageable. But in the long-run it turns into what we have today and when there are no more people to spread Level 1 and Level 2 fascism “existence tax” over what comes after I do not want to imagine.
There was no “good” Founding Father – Lincoln was the only one who had the cajones to bring barbarism to an end; then the “wealthy” realized that they needed to turn globally, that American people would no longer tolerate one group dominating another physically – or at least not that particular model (Chattel slavery). Reservationism and Broken Treaties when on for a bit longer though, didn’t it; then of course we had “prison slavery” (the new and improved). Regardless, the Indian population stabilized and African-American population flourished – those of us who chose for ourselves and our children to build entrepreneurial opportunity have done really well for ourselves.
We only need to meditate on Rothbard’s NAP and Mises Consumer-Sovereignty to build the idealistic model of Self-Rule and Anarchy.
You cannot have Anarchy while mainting a Central and State-Level Slave Based economy where the north and south have mounting debt-financing going on with the House of England and France; the absurdity lead to the civil war (off-gassing).
It would of require the first generation of Founder’s to “self-sacrifice” their income stream (which was based on centralized statist barbarism) to pre-vent the civil war (off-gassing).
‘Harkening back’ is silly, I agree, but it’s not silly to show how government is able to justify its authority over people today by distorting the true nature of history.
I agree – but it is “folly” to try to educate logically on why free-enterprise is the best model (today) by saying men were “freer” during slavery, broken treaties, land theft, mass rape - infanticide - sodomy, forcd abortion, and mass genocide.
It’s a barbaric and heartless opening thesis, smile.
I’m of African and Indian ancestry and my Irish ancesters (being catholic) were only a few margin points “better off.”
The upper 8% were the only ones who could vote – No women or minorities (obviously)
On the subject of pedophilia and rape…
That “sentiment” was pure rubbish. You are #1 un-educated to the level an extent of rape-sodomy-infanticide was going on by the faux “Helenic” south. To say that “free” children (black families) would of been more cruel by pure-speculation (not one shred of statistical or evidential fact) is highly ignorant.
There were ONLY (as if) 1,000 to 2,000 blacks killed per year duing Black Codes “era” – Virtually no children were drown or fed to crocodiles during this period, virtually no women were forced to have abortions, and the numbers of rape and sodomy (white on black) was far far far far lower. It just wasn’t as easy when men were “allowed” to defend their families. It was still a horrible period – no doubt, but what you are suggesting is grotesque and un-founded.
The point is that the two are incommensurate. It doesn’t make sense to say “War against slaveholders is justified because slavery is worse than war.” The rest is just details.
Native Americans are safely contained within patches of desert called “reservations”, their “leadership” is bought off or, if they get too noisy, taken out as in the Wounded Knee incident. Blacks of whatever origin in the United States are a carefully controlled and subsidized political pressure group ever since the Civil Rights movement in the 60’s gave the Establishment a good scare. But look at the rest of the US empire. Look at all the suffering, plunder and pillaging that is done by the United State government through its “free trade” agreements, its economic warfare, its central bank inflation and its voracious appetite for natural resources, especially oil. Do you think the families of the million-plus Iraqis blown to smithereens by US forces (or Iraqi insurgents fighting US forces) consider themselves freer under the mantle of US empire than they were under Saddam?? I doubt it.
“Capitalism” is not a historical era. Check your definitions.
“Communism” and “capitalism” when used as buzzwords by the political elites are no different. The political elites are always taking about the same economic system… WE work, THEY eat. That’s the only economic system they are ever fighting for, whatever label they apply to it.
But in economics, “capitalism” and “communism” are clearly distinguishable, and also distinguishable from feudalism.
Naw, there’s no “ism” that ever scared anybody but political elites armed with divisions of tanks and infantry are another matter.
As a wise friend of mine once told me, “it’s all about perspective.” I think the Afghan farmer whose son is gunned down by trigger-happy US soldiers while riding a motorcycle into town would disagree with you on whether the US occupation of Afghanistan is tolerable or not.
My recommendation to you: Try to make your points without using any word that ends in “-ism” and refraing from using the words “us” “we” “them” “they” “their” “our” and so on. It’s good practice and sharpens the mind. Nobody in the history of the world has ever willingly died for an “-ism”.
I like your anger but you need to focus it more sharply. It’s as silly to suggest that white people are especially prone to enslaving as it is to suggest that Jews are especially prone to double-dealing. It’s useless generalization and lazy thinking. The reality is that the principle of enslavement is a worldwide phenomenon, practiced virtually everwhere on the globe with a few minor exceptions (Afghanistan was one of them) and the European/Anglo-American elites (white elites) have perfected the art of it. If there’s any connection between whiteness and enslavement, that is it. Despite the wars of the 20th century, Europe/England/America has colonized, subjugated or outright enslaved a large portion of the globe. Russia, China, Iran and some other powers lie outside of this sphere of domination which explains why those countries are constantly characterized as evil or terroristic within the Western propaganda machine.
Lincoln didn’t care about slavery, it was just a point of leverage in the larger dispute. Lincoln was just another run-of-the-mill self-seeking politician seeking his own advancement and aggrandizement. He achieved it at the cost of 100’s of thousands of innocent lives (small-fry compared to the shitstorm the European elites would start a half-century later).
Um, it’s not still going on?? To what neutral third-party court have Indian treaties ever been submitted when Native American tribes have complained the US government was breaking its promises? None. Ever. US courts review US promises and always conclude that the US is keeping its promises or maybe needs to pay a little hush money to the tribal leaders.
That we do. Over 2 million Americans are enslaved in a world with no rules. At least slave-holders had an economic interest in not abusing their slaves to the point their productivity would be decreased but the ganglords of prison do whatever they want. There is no reason for them to permit you to live or not sexually or physically abuse you every remaining day in your life. And that’s precisely what is going on in America’s prisons.
Naw, we don’t need idealism, common decency will do just fine.
You are missing my point completely. You cannot include a consquentialistic claim using the NAP… and you cant use a NAP claim using consequentialism. To do so is being inconsistent with NAP or consequentialism. You are justifying the Civil War by using consequentialism… so I do not know why you are talking about Rothbard’s NAP to begin with. Again, I ask you: pick your weapon : consquentialism or NAP
I never said (in the first place) that NAP was even a criterion of “thought” that existed during The Founding or during Lincoln’s Era – What I was going to ellude to if someone could of answered the question at face value (in the simplistic and conversational terms it was presented) is WHY do “we” as Miseseans or Rothbardians knowing that physical slavery is a far greater evil than “un-just taxation” tend to take the side of the South (the upper 8% who owned slaves colluded with central gov’t, foreign gov’ts, and foreign centralized banking) over that of the North – arguing succession over un-just taxation?
If “we” believe in NAP and given that all Rothbardian arguments for free-entreprise (his anarcho-capitalism) can be driven back to NAP why do we use the Civil War to argue in favor of the “right” to nullyfication – It inevitably brings up the tiresome never ending back-and-forth sentimentalism over the absolutist position that Lincoln (alone) was responsible for Civil War when in modern times we argue that it is Central Bankers who pushed Bush to war (that he did not act on whim that this was calculated by men that men never see and not a former MLB owner? Why do we “harken” back (nostalgically – as Rothbardians and Rockwellians tend to) of a “freer” period of time when whole races of people were living under a kind of servitude un-imagineable today. Especially when DiLorenzo ignored how much the South (the upper 8% who owned the slaves) were forming tangling alliances with France - Brittian - House of Rothschilds (in France and England). The latter having a deep desire to push slavery out west; that the South had been subsidized for a long time prior to talks of succession. That France and England had standing armies in Mexico and Canada to invade the U.S on the side of south – for what free-enterprise purposes, hahaha. None of these things were talked about in his books or debates. Why would Misses Institute make such a lopsided argument when NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty (plus the Southern 8% in-debtedness / tangling alliance with Brit - Franc) makes arguing for the Southern “right” to Succede perverse.
NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty (in modern language – zero harkening back – zero intellectual reparations) are all that is needed.
From our vantage point we only need to see that there was NEVER a period of NAP or Consumer-Soveriegnty prior to Lincoln (owing to or because of Lincoln), so to hang him now when the South (the ruling 8%) were so out of ethics (developing entangling alliances with Former Colonial Powers and Rothschilds) seems like a misguided way to ring in the notion of free-enterprise. Or is it me?
Doesn’t NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty stand on their own?
We’re not beltway libertarians here on mises.org, well, most of us aren’t. We leave the “What would John Adams Do?” to the pseudo-libertarians at the Cato Institute.
DiLorenzo wrote an entire book on Lincoln – as if Statism and Central banking was created by Lincoln. The South (the ruling 8%) had long been indebted to the Rotschilds (England and France Central Bankers); they struck deals and Brit-France had soldiers parked in Canada and Mexico waiting to aid the South (to push slavery into the western states and to re-establish a North American foothold). None of this metioned in the DiLorenzo book and he’s a tauted Rothbardian, quoted by many Mises Institute scholars (etc). So when you say “we here on Mises(dot)org” are not making “what would John Adams do” type political-historical re-visionism then what do you call it. Especially know that Big State and Big Central Gov needed to collude to make Slavery - Fugitive Slave Laws - Transatlantic Slavery, Land Theft, Reservationism, and Mass Genocide “cost effective” – can you imagine the free-market costs of keeping Relocation and Slavery alive?
The Lincoln bashing is un-necessary if the Mises Institute does not “harken back” – I mean why that period; why not the periods that led up to it, it’s pointless. To say “hey libs and neocons Lincoln was an idiot, the Souther States had a constitutional right to succede to continue indebtedness to Rothschilds, to aid in western slave expansion – ‘hey’ guys these are some of the reasons we think nullification or succession are good ideas today?”
The best arguments we can make are NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty – I can defeat any Liberal or GOP position with those two gems I don’t need to find one Pres. Administration better than another. No one was making the 600K Civil War was a “benefit” to liberty type argument which then required the Mises Institute to back the DiLorenzo book – it’s intellectual reparations; we don’t need a Big State Nullification or Succession.
According to Mises succession is gained at the POS and by localism – neither require historical re-interpritation or “Founding Father” justifications.
Lot’s of Mises scholars make “harken” back arguments – are you serious, please don’t ask me to prove it, you must have not been thinking that one through.
—Block talks about Washer Woman “rights” back in the 1840’s
—DiLorenzo’s Lincoln
—Even Ron Paul talks about the Founders
—I’ve heard Rockwell do it
—Napolitano
I could keep going on – maybe I misundertood what you meant to say versus what you wrote?
I’ve not read DiLorenzo’s books on the subject and, personally, I find the whole subject rather tiresome. I live on the West Coast and I find it impossible to understand how, 150+ years since the Civil War, the people who live in “the North” are still worshipping Abraham Lincoln as if he were some kind of demi-god and how the people who live in “the South” are still trying to make apologetics for the actions of Southern slave-owners. My understanding of DiLorenzo’s work is that he’s simply trying to dethrone Lincoln from his mythical demi-god status in US consciousness. Lincoln was no saint and, in fact, he was just another cynical, calculating tyrant like all but a tiny handful of our Presidents have been.
Ah, that’s where you’re wrong. The myths created around tyrants are a crucial part of modern propaganda, going back to at least King David. I have this excellent book on King David which applies a critical historical method to the Biblical narrative of King David and arrives at a starkly contrasting picture of David from that which you see portrayed in the plain text of the Bible or by Michelangelo or Shakespeare. Abraham Lincoln has been wrapped in a layer upon layer of myths and year after year, these myths are taught to doe-eyed schoolchildren while constructing “log cabins” out of popsicle sticks and Elmer’s glue. The purpose of these myths is to imbue the Presidency with an aura of magnificence, grandeur and moral force just as the myths surrounding King David have been used by generations of European monarchs to reinforce their own authority as The Powers that Be, that is, the powers that are ordained of God. I do not wish to return to the time of Southern confederacy. I simply wish not to have American children indoctrinated with awe and reverence for an office that has become indistinguishable from Caesar’s throne in the ridiculous powers it commands and the capricious way in which it exercises those powers.
You do realize that the US President has the power to have you seized and detained indefinitely if he labels you an enemy combatant, cf Brandon Mayfield. And you do realize that the War on Terror has a racist component to it, right? What is the dominant religion on the continent of Africa? It’s not Christianity, it’s Islam. And the identification of Islam with terrorism is precisely what is going on in the right-wing propaganda machine, cf Peter King’s hearings. What color have the “perpetrators” consistently been in the FBI terror sting operations have supposedly stopped in Miami and elsewhere over the last several years? And you think it makes sense to support aggrandizement of executive power, that somehow imbuing the Presidency with ever more terrifying powers is empowering blacks and preventing slavery?? You must be crazy!
As Tom Woods has been patiently pointing out for some time, nullification was never used or even threatened to be use to continue slavery, but it has been used to stop slavery.
I guess it would be more constructive if we were dissecting specific quotes rather than making sweeping generalizations. I disagree at one point or another with every Mises.org scholar I’ve read, I have no religious devotion to any of them. Let’s tear apart a specific quote.