Jump to content
On behalf of all non-voting, non-resident, Routt County tax paying Anarchists, I nominate George Krawzoff to the esteemed position of board member of YVHA.
(Though I claim to speak on behalf all members of this important constituency, I secretly passed a law making me dictator of it anyway and my covert actions in a far distant place will bound others for all time.)
Bastiat is great, especially the broken window fallacy. However, I am an Anarchist in the school of Murray Rothbard. I'd suggest "The Ethics of Liberty" and "For a New Liberty" by him.
Karl: one other point to ponder. What is a nation, country, State, or tribe? Are they all the same? If not, should the boundary lines demarking them take those definitions into consideration? To me, starting at the smallest unit, the individual, and then heading out to family, community, is best way to draw those lines. I didn't sign Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc., so should I be perpetually and personally bound by them? One session of Congress is not bound by the previous, so should I individually be bound by previous actors, long since dead.
John, sure we should celebrate accomplishments, but saying only US upholds these ideals or does it the best is wrong. Not saying you said that, but somewhat inferred (and I may be wrong). Switzerland has been a civil rights respecting FEDERAL republic much longer, and has both peace and prosperity. Look at lists of civil rights, economic, and press freedom now and US is not leader in any. It leads in military spending and prison population.
Also, if secession is not allowed, why did Lincoln accept the secession of western Virginians from Virginia? I guess because Washington would still rule.
Stewart: look at a map of Civil War battles and tell me if that was not northern aggression. Look at the goals. The North: subjugate the south so it would still be unified. The South: if it had taken Washington, it was only to be able to negotiate separation, not rule the whole.
I think you are conflating purposes of secession (partly to largely slavery, though in conformance with constitution) with reasons Lincoln and his ilk were willing to stop secession through war (Unionism and tariffs, not slavery). Not many went to joined with John Brown in his war.
As a southerner raised by immigrant offspring northerners, my peeps were in Europe at the time of the war so no dog in the fight. Claiming southerners are more racist now is slightly off base. Why is Boston considered America's most racist city and ATL the city too busy to hate? Neither may be right, but not completely wrong. My personal experiences match with that.
Karl: Thank you for the kind words. Zero government is the ideal, the starting point of negotiations, recognizing that something must be better than over 1 billion ruled from Beijing and New Dehli or 320 million from Washington. The more power centralized the more likely mass killings. Tokyo wanting to rule all of Asia led to many deaths; if Hitler ran Bavaria (pre-1870 Germany was quite decentralized) rather than a whole Empire the world would have been better. Who knows if individual government is workable, but mass government helps accomplish mass killing.
See the first paragraph for Lincoln believing in his own race's superiority (racism defined, I believe):
I'm sure the slaves would disagree, then the freed slaves and other blacks pre-1965, natives, Catholic immigrants by the Know-Nothings, Germans and anti-war activists in WWI, Japanese interred during WWII ...
Follow the money. The evil in both cases is the State (capitalized, meaning government) being used to financially benefit those connected therewith. Southern aristocrats seceded because the northerners started violating the constitution by not enforcing the fugitive slave law--meaning using the State to give them back their "property" (just because constitutional doesn't make it moral). Northern aristocrats attacked (more presisely, induced attack) the south to collect the duties and imposts--theft disguised as taxation to benefit the looters. Sadly, non-slaveholding southern whites fought Irish immigrants and poor white northerners because those financially benefitting from State power wanted them to do so. I don't remember reading about too many plantation owners, industrialists, or politicians holding the line or making the charge.
The State is the Evil, whether the USA, CSA, ISIS or Third Reich (though obviously in different degrees; generally the smaller the better). That's why I fly the flags of the Individual and the property-respecting Anarchist.
George, two slightly different points. My understanding was Lincoln was fairly representative of the times. Here is something to corroborate he was a middle of the road racist:
My second point was Stewart should confirm that Lincoln's overriding priority was extreme Unionism rather than ending slavery, much less racism, so slurring those of us who think war was not appropriate as racists is wrong. By the way, slavery ended peacefully everywhere save US and Haiti, I believe.
Kieran: how about neither?
I'd say Lincoln was as racist as the next guy in the north at that time. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no or very few slaves, though prospectively it did. Many border Union states did not have their slaves freed until after the war, with the 13th Amendment.
I'd read this before calling others racist:
Last login: Thursday, January 29, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.