[JohnGalt]

That is the essence of the point.

'Inalienable rights' has no practical meaning unless you are willing to shed blood for these rights. If you do not believe violation of perceived rights is a justification for state sponsored violence, then you are essentially arguing from a centrist position, with a leaning towards rightwing libertarianism.

Your last point on the loss of 9th and 10th Amendment protection on the form of government (republic) is why disliking Lincoln's War is the key to American Rightwing Libertarianism BTW.

[thoughtomator]

Well, as I said, I am conflicted about it. Ending slavery was most certainly worth shedding blood to do; ending the contract of state sovereignty was not. Libertarianism both gained and lost as a result of the Civil War. The essence of my conflict is whether it was really worth it to have the war if the result is a greater number of people without freedom, as it turned out to be. While slavery was ended, it is highly questionable that the blacks were actually freed, in the fundamental sense of freedom, by the war - 100 years later, and even today, the freedom of blacks in America is in doubt.

Are Americans now free? I do not think we are truly free in the USA, although we still stand in a far better condition than most of the rest of the world.