Clayton I think we “agree” (fundamentally) more than we disagree.
I’m not a Mises-deist or a Rothbardian demagogue.
I LOOOOVE NAP and C-S (consumer-soveriegnty). With those two principles (ideas - notions) one can rip apart any politicial philosophy.
I might be taking liberties with the interpritation of both, but every great idea can use a boost (nip and tuck) here and there.
Were you arguing that “we” were freer back then - prior to Lincoln - then today because the president has war-time powers that far overreach constitutional scope? I do not know one person the president arrested and I challenge you to name the people you “know” (you personally). There are more people dying from whale bone penile impalement (per year) then there are people languishing in prison on Presidential Order – hahahaha.
Do I like that he has those powers? No. Would I trade Chattel Slavery (having family members sold off, women having forced abortions, mass infanticide, rape of women and girls and sodomy of young boys, and not “owning” any property what-so-ever) for life in Modern Times? Hmmmmmmm – let me think about this…Hahahahaha
Should we tolerate any % of lost liberty – NOOOO. But that is different that suggest to Blacks and Indians (half my ancestry) or suggesting to Irish Catholics (my other half) that we were freer prior to Lincolnian times then we are now – hahahahahaha. Come on now (think)!!
Izzy – You are putting a false claim on me. I never said (ONCE) that since Slavery is worse than War (or War worse than slavery – depending on how you view liberty – one can “run” from War or if injured “pinky toe shot off” be freed from it) that we should not discuss Lincoln in negative terms; but if we are going to go after the one politician who died in service and elimination of the Rape-Sodomy-Bondage practice known as Chattle Slavery we should EITHER understand what life under a system like that effects (on the Upper 8% who owned slaves - On abdicating whites who watch idly - On the slaves themselves - and On the Nation as a whole) OR we should tread carefully; meaning we should not so flipantly cast him off as the worst president ever while holding up the right of the south to succede (referring to the latter as a qualifier to modern day succession).
I hope the reason why is clear (on the latter) – it should be so repugnantly obvious that it need not be discussed – "why one should be indelicate regarding slavery and the “innocence” of the South regarding the “War of Aggression” (the latter phrase is just stupid and whiny and sore-looserish).
To have slavery in the first place – for it to exist – there must be Gov’t Collusion (at the State and Federal Level), Gov’t Subsidization, and Powerful Force-Agency.
You must have THE OPPOSITE of free-markets.
Capitalism and Communism are “nationalistic models” – When either is run by “TRULY” benevolent leadship it’s (possible) to have a golden society; but the model is always “thought up” by people who want to rule and power corrupts (yadda yadda yadda).
It appears that there cannot be force-agency (at all) and thus there cannot be abdication of self-rule and obviously you cannot FORCE others into subjugation.
I think you also asked why am I discussing Mises and NAP – I probably was talking about Consumer-Sovereignty which trumps Rothbard’s definition of individual-ownership. I think the combination of NAP and C-S builds the freest society possible. When the consumer is “free” from regulation and subsidization then everyone is free because everyone is a consumer – a human being can ONLY be a consumer.
Whether you believe in the Big Bang (which does not require “belief” more an one possible scientific plausibility) or God Creationism both can agree that there was ONLY one “Production Moment” – Everything that happened afterward is Consumption. Man “molds” or “converts” or “puts together” component parts – Man does not “create” anything. Thus Economic Producers are in truth a subset of Consumers; they must consume resources, knowledge, tools, etc before they can “create” or “produce.”
My point with the latter again (if it’s not clear) is that when consumers are free – everyone is free.
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.
That’s either a joke, or the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.
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.
Ok, by your follow up, it was not a joke…
BTW, you do know most gays are leftist democrats, meaning they support taxes and the welfare state…
Slaveholders brought British and French soldier on both our borders – owing to their debt and allied position about pushing slavery out west.
War was not brought on the heads of slave holders – they represented only 8% of the South. 92% of the remaining southern white men did NOT know their “betters” were in-debted to England and France – nor would they trade a union with the North over re-colonialization with France and England.
Debt brought war down on the heads of the Southern (upper 8%) because they sold themselves into debt-slavery to subsidized physical slavery…An option was for them to go into bankruptsy. The buy-out Lincoln offered was not enough to clear the debt – The South had no choice because France and England did not want them to ever pay that debt down, they wanted slavery pushed into the west and control the natural ports of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.
I also said Slavery is not worse than War (in the short-run) but in the long run it IS War – War against NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty.
The latter being my point on why “we” as Misesean or Rothbardian (especially MI Professors / Speakers) should not use the “war of aggression” (misnomer) as a rational qualifier for why States should push for nullyfication or succession.
Lincoln was not the bad guy – Southern Debt-Addiciton to prop up a model of economics that can only be supported by ever-bigger central and state gov’ts; it is not possible (in the medium or long run) to support slavery without Unionization. The South chose former Colonial (oppressors) as their Union then pretended (to the 92% of southern white men who did not know better) they wanted to Succede.
No, you are basically saying Slavery is worse than war (and you indeed justify the Civil War based on your premise that Slavery is worse than war) , you just do not want to admit it because you know by saying that, you violate the whole purpose of the NAP… Like I said, its fine not to address the issues I set up for you because this debate is not going to go anywhere
No I said War is worse (In the Short-Run). Slavery only exists in the medium to long-run; in the short-run slavery is kidnapping and forced labor. You don’t become a “slave” until time passes by. Chattel Slavery is one of the worst forms – Your children are born slaves. Pretty soon slave-mentality becomes so much part of your thinking you cannot comprehend freedom – this takes generations.
War only lasts as long as you are in it – It ends as soon as you leave it. Slavery does not end at the end of the day or if you are injured.
Injured soldier goes home. A soldier is “paid” and for the most part knows why he is there.
War is relatively “voluntary” once you agree to participate.
Slavery does not ask for your participation.
While you are at war – Your wife is not raped nor are your sons sodomized or sold off while you are at war. But when you are a Chattel Slave when you are at work your wife and sons are treated by the whim of their “master.”
Slavery is War – A War against the Mind-Heart-Soul.
War (proper) is a Physical and Economic War – The only people who truly benefit are the Wealthy and Bankers
—In most wars you a limited tour of duty. Then you are asked if you want to resign or stay on as a reserver. You are “asked”
Your argument slid off your cracker. I can say Slavery is worse than War and NOT say that War fits NAP.
I can put subjective opinion on which is worse and also feel both are contrary to NAP.
You just added that last part in your head.
Show me where I said War does not violate NAP.
Actually there is Just-War-Theory – There are times when War is the only option – Haiti won it’s independence from slavery by War-Rebellion.
The South could not accept Lincoln’s offer (buy-out) because their debt was more than three times what he was offering and they could not continue with slavery without Collusion without a Centralized Military Power. Their must be Collusion. The South chose to collude and “unionize” with Brit and France.
You are phrasing the question in moral terms. This is a mistake. The issue of centralisation-decentralisation is not a moral one. It is a practical one. Libertarians favour state rights, devolution, national sovereignty and so on over their opposites as a matter of strategy, not morals. It means favouring the concepts most likely to produce a semblance of freedom in a statist world.
Think instead of gangs or mafias. Small mafias and big mafias. If a shopkeeper is being brutalised by a small mafia, does a big mafia have the obligation to step in? It is a non-question. The only obligation a mafia has is to dissolve itself.
The only question that can be asked is: If the shopkeeper believes that he would be better treated by the big mafia, is it wrong of him to call on the big mafia to step in and take the place of the small mafia? The answer is of course no. It is not wrong. For the sake of his defense he may ask of the big mafia to crack down on the small mafia.
The other question is how wise is it to do so? This is the extent of the libertarian argument for state’s rights. In the long term you are almost certainly better off being subject to a small mafia, rather than to a large mafia.
No American has any rights. Erase that concept from your mind because it is a false premise. Now, ask the right question, which is “from where does the government get the right to rule anyone?”
I’m trying to use language that is familiar to Rothbardians, so I might be mis-using “rights” as that is a concept I do not believe in. I do not believe you can have a free-society with one person having a “guarantee” or “justificatory ‘out’” without having some level of force-agency for them to qualify it too – even if that force-agency is relatively voluntary.
Think instead of gangs or mafias. Small mafias and big mafias. If a shopkeeper is being brutalised by a small mafia, does a big mafia have the obligation to step in? It is a non-question. The only obligation a mafia has is to dissolve itself.
Big Mafia = Central Gov’t
Small Mafia = State Gov’t
Big Mafia serve the interests (in part) of Small Mafia
At least in the drug trade.
You are making my point – thanks.
My point is that pre-Lincoln Small Mafia’s (States) maintained as policy the right to own slaves, break treaties, and force-assimilate Indian children (etc etc etc) – They did this with the full backing of the Big Mafia (central gov’t).
So why would Rothbardians and Miseseans talk Succession or Nullyfication?
If we know in modern times that all wars are fought for Supply Chain, Resources, and Cheap Labor (Bill Clinton’s plan to move sweat shop labor into Haiti). Why would this not be the case in “olden” times? Maybe none of the wars we’ve ever witnessed were ever fought without full Collusion – One batch of Upper 8% Cousins funnin’ with another batch of Upper 8’s.
—From State to Central Gov’t and back again
This is why I am against “harkening” back to a “freer” period – there was no freer period only for the Upper 8%.
Which book are you referring to, and have you read it?
Actually, this criticism is pointless. Obviously when doing historical analysis, one has to focus on some point in history. You’re making an argument from ignorance.
Sure they were. The Straussians were, and the Staussians are the intellectual wing of the neoconservatives. Again, which book are you talking about, and also, you’re still making this silly error of either (1) insisting we ignore the past or (2) claiming that a focus on any one period is somehow intellectually dishonest to other periods. Your argument is bunk.
Again, are you saying that we cannot discuss history at all? I agree that empirical arguments are pointless, but haven’t you made a point about all sorts of historical wrongs yourself? Aren’t you guilty of the very same errors of narration?
Also, just because those guys do it, doesn’t mean it is a “Mises” thing. Only someone with the most superficial exposure to Austro-libertarianism would believe those folks represent the leading edge of Misesian and Libertarian thought (no disrespect to Lew Rockwell, who is a hero of mine).
We don’t know that “all wars are fought for” any particular reason. You can’t know intent. It’s an epistemological error to claim otherwise.
Your obsession with classes like an arbitrary 8% do nothing to help you make a precise argument. Austro-libertarians are methodological individualists. Name names otherwise you’re just making vacuous claims that don’t really make a better case than pointing at DiLorenzo and claiming he was being unnecessarily specific.
No offense but you haven’t posted one thing in this thread that indicates you are a Misesian or a Rothbardian. On the contrary, you’ve posted stuff that indicates you’re neither.
They are the same thing. Slavery is slavery. Taxes are slavery.
You can believe in anything you want, that doesn’t make it so. Don’t confuse an “ought” with an “is”.
I have no idea what consumer sovereignty is, it sounds incompatible with property. As far as what is needed, that depends on which audience you’re speaking to and what your goals are. Newsflash, not everyone thinks as you do.
It’s you. No one claimed that there was a NAP period. And attacking Lincoln is not defending the south.
I’m not sure you understand what the former is, and the latter seems to be some nonsense brought in from the mainstream.
We “do” know why modern wars are fought – For Oil, For Metals, For Oil Piplines, For Supply Chain Profits (to extend the war machine), For Construction, For Debt Profits, For Military Spending, For Militarism – etc. We “know” this because Misesean Scholars have all written about it, because Mises has written about it, because Rothbard has written about it – Because Ron Paul and Napolitano talk endlessly about it and because it’s obvious to the casual observer.
One can figure this out by observing “spending” and reading Gov’t Detailed reports on where it went – they don’t deny it, it’s right there.
Are you being funny – Is this a trick question, hahahaha.
Maybe you are making a more subtle point here, as in “we cannot know what was in Lincoln’s head when he made all his decisions,” now this I would agree on – but most Rothbardian Scholars disagree, they will make direct claims; ignoring the obvious facts about Southern Upper 8% debt and tangling foreign alliances with former colonial powers.
The desire to make slavery work blinded them – it was never a viable business (slavery) it required Big Central Gov’t collusion with Small State Gov’t who colluded with the Upper 8% (the 8% who owned the slaves) – it could of never lasted so long in an actual free-society or under Mises’ Minarchist Society (which is almost a pure free-society). This is my point – We (as Miseseans / Rothbardians / Free-Market Thinkers) should not use The South as the poster-child to free-market rebellion; they were in fact the EXACT opposite, they were treasonist against the “principles” of NAP (not that they ‘heard’ of it or that they cared) and they were treasonist against consumer-sovereignty (owing to state collusion, indebtedness, and tryanical control over 12% of the population). Many other reasons – you get the idea.
We could win over Gays - Liberals - Women - Workers - and Minorities with some short logical arguments; but no, “we” The Liberty Movements strongest voice (Misesean / Rothbardian Scholars and Liberty Movement Politicians) want to focus on the Civil War and how Lincoln was responsible for 600K deaths and the South was well within their Constitutional Rights to Secede (leaving out all the drippings of course) – THIS is the winning strategy.
There’s more but this will be a lot for you to pick through.
Bumping this because it’s basically the same concern I see all the time when discussing libertarian and classical liberal political theory (my thread I created yesterday is about a debate regarding Ron Paul’s stance relative to this).
It is frustrating because the answers are clearly there, yet while the responses to OP’s question-
If an American State, … 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?
-make clear the ramifications of this consequentialist devil’s advocate argument, they fail to provide a recourse for the individuals who have clearly been effected by such local and state depredations on liberty.
Yet the answers are clearly there within the Constitutional framework (I am not referring to ancap; the average person who raises this issue has no care and knowledge of ancap when they obviously have reservations over even classical liberal theory): the citizen’s duty to nullify an unconstitutional state law (Texan sodomy law, Kelo etc) just as rightfully as a state’s duty to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. Thus citizens suing the state government.
What is unfortunate is that there is a fatalist attitude among many skeptics of this decentralist view, especially from those who have lived in communities that have favored unconstitutional state and local laws (I do not endorse the SC’s interpretation of positive rights from such past decisions as Lawrence v Texas, but nonetheless everyone here should detest the reasoning behind anti-sodomy laws).
The skeptics do not see any value in a federalist/decentralized approach since they have been alienated by their state government, they doubt their own ability to influence such laws by challenging them in court and see the federal government as a savior in such cases. In short they conclude with the contradictory position of believing in the futility of the citizen to challenge City Hall or Capital Hall, yet trust in the citizen’s ability to influence DC. To them the federal government is more effective as an ‘unbiased mediator’, and they reason this arbitration crosses state lines and helps ‘solve’ the flaws of state governments. This is their reasoning, and I do not blame them for taking this viewpoint, despite it being built from false premises, when they have experienced such alienation and isolation from the majority.
This then ends up as it always has: the debate over the 14th Amendment and federalism. I have yet to read Woods’ Nullification, but does he cover this concern raised by the OP? Because afaict nobody in this thread has.