Many paleo-Conservatives and paleo-Libertarians want to convince you that the south was fighting the good fight but I find it hard to believe. Yes Lincoln did violate the Constitution but the south had SLAVES!!! To libertarian individual rights should be of up most importance and slavery is clearly a violation of those rights. Anyways what is your opinion on the Civil War? Is the South really all that innocent?
Lincoln also had slaves, didn’t he (i.e. taxpayers)? Besides, did he care about slavery or was it political opportunism/authoritarian impulses?
we are metholodical individualists so when we are in pedantic mood we deny north and south as false paradigms, the north would have innocents that never aggressed any southeners, and others that did , going to war there., the south counts amongst its numbers, individuals who slaved and those who did not.
we might note how slavery was abandoned in many other countries in short order without massive loss of life contra the american experience.
also just because slaves have a right to secede and be free, so to do the rights of southerners who are not slavers. did northern soldiers make such fine distinctions?
Did the South really care about the scope of government or did they just want to have totalitarian “State Rights” to oppress slaves?
So why didn’t the South peacefully abandon their slave practices?
when you say ‘"the south’ you mean everyone who lived in the south? or the political elite there? , or some other definite set of people? or are you just throwing words around because its what people who are not methodological individualists have a habit of doing…
The southern slave owners.
I am sure individuals within the South felt they had the right to keep slaves - which is an issue concerning them and ONLY them. Too bad Lincoln also had his own retinue of them. So for him to wage a war against “slavery” is, to put it mildly, hyporitical. And then to subjugate the South under his rule was even more criminal. Just widespread slavery of a more subtle sort.
So individuals who had slaves is ok?
So your saying its ok to have slaves?
People like you is why the libertarian party is so small. You’re so blinded by hate towards the government that you ignore totalitarian Southern slavery owners just because they were individuals and not the government.
how did you get that impression, jon didnt come close to saying anything like that…
are you saying its ok to molest labradors? :-p
“I am sure individuals within the South felt they had the right to keep slaves - which is an issue concerning them and ONLY them.”
Apparently its ok for individuals to have slaves.
Sir, I understand that chattel slavery seems more despicable to you than tax slavery.
Still, please do not promote the idea that other people’s children should be killed and resources should be expropriated to fight for either one of them. It looks somewhat pretentious.
no…saying that one set of people should not war on another set of people( some subset of which are criminals), is not support for criminality per se.
ever heard two wrongs dont make a right?
Of course he hates the government, it enslaves us. If you look at the war as a war to abolish slavery, then it was a war to abolish selective slavery in an effort to unilaterally enslave everyone. How quaint.
I never said taxes were ok or that it was ok to kill others for any reason but how could a libertarian defend southern slave owners is mind boggling to me.
So why do you defend the slaves owners then? both are wrong so why pick sides?
I didn’t defend them, and neither did Jon. You’re putting words in our mouths.
So tax slavery is worse than chattel slavery to you?