Civil (Libertarian) War? (Libertarians and Secession)

Lewrockwell.com ^ | June 8, 2002 | James Ostrowski

[Huck]

Good. Let these retards argue amongst themselves for a while.

modern libertarian revival

LOL.

[Huck]

LOL. This article is so stupid I can't stop laughing. It reminds me of the People's Front of Judea in Monty Python's Life of Brian:

STAN:

I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG:

What?!

LORETTA:

It's my right as a man.

JUDITH:

Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA:

I want to have babies.

REG:

You want to have babies?!

LORETTA:

It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG:

But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA:

Don't you oppress me.

REG:

I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA:

[crying]

JUDITH:

Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS:

Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG:

What's the point?

FRANCIS:

What?

REG:

What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS:

It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG:

Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[Niagara]

Or as is said in another scene:
"Right, this calls for serious discussion!"

[dighton]

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!

[VA Advogado]

Good. Let these retards argue amongst themselves for a while.

Bump for a right thinking individual. :)

[Huck]

LOL. Good one. I'll bet the "editorial" board of lewrockwell operates in much the same way:

LORETTA: New motion?

REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action--

FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken.

REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...

JUDITH:

Reg, for God's sake, let's go now!

REG:

Yeah. Yeah.

JUDITH:

Please!

REG:

Right. Right.

FRANCIS:

Fine.

REG:

In the-- in the light of fresh information from, ahh, sibling Judith--

LORETTA:

Ah, not so fast, Reg.

JUDITH:

Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple. All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans' nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand?! Ohhh!

[slam]

REG:

Hm. Hm.

FRANCIS:

Oh, dear.

REG:

Hello. Another little ego trip for the feminists.

LORETTA:

What?

FRANCIS:

[whistling]

REG:

Oh, sorry, Loretta. Ahh, oh, read that back, would you?

[Demidog]

The Cato institute has been doing its best to repudiate libertarian ideas lately. The idea that secession was in essence "kidnapping" is silly. In order to believe that theory you have to assume that the slaves were somehow being taken away from the Union. The Union didn't want the slaves and Lincoln was not interested in freeing the slaves. He was attempting to keep the union together for economic reasons.

[wardaddy]

Libertarianism and the WBTS on the same thread....not me. Most of what I see from Lew Rockwell aggravates me period. I am not real big on self derived morality although I am cognizant of liberties. It is possible to be a Conservative with libertarian "ideals" and still be practical and also to believe that morality should be grounded in God. Don't take me wrong, I'm not terribly pious but I know "what time it is".

[strela]

Don't take me wrong, I'm not terribly pious but I know "what time it is".

Does anybody really know what time it is?

Does anybody really care?

[wardaddy]

They have a reunion tour on going. Wasn't that song about an acid trip?

[x]

LOL!

History shows that DiLorenzo is right. Lincoln and the Republican Party believed in big government – the American System: national bank (inflation); high tariffs (protectionism) and internal improvement (corporate welfare). They believed in the majority imposing its will on the minority. They believed in martial force to achieve their goals.

The Confederates themselves believed in "the majority imposing its will on the minority." They also clearly "believed in martial force to achieve their goals." We don't know enough to decide how big government would be if they'd won, because they did not win. It's easy to postulate some Jeffersonian libertarian tradition, but in fact, "Jeffersonian Democrats" down through the years have supported some very repressive or statist measures.

This is "do it yourself" history that severs ideas, facts and myths from their historical context to combine them as the author sees fit. Ostrowski ignores what was possible at the time and what was at issue. He doesn't so much reach a conclusion logically as impose one arbitrarily. He flirts with pacifism and anarchism to attack the Union but doesn't ask the same questions or make the same reproaches where the Confederacy is concerned. Ostrowski excuses in the Confederates what he attacks in Unionists and what he would also attack in a slave rebellion.

Ostrowski does remind me more than a little of Monty Python's idiot, Mr Gumby. "My brain hurts"

[Free the USA]

fyi

[kettle belly]

The South was trying to take slaves out of US jursidiction, which probably would have meant prolonging their bondage. The Civil war was not primarily about ending slavery but this was nonetheless a, to some extent unstated, secondary objective without which far fewer northerners would have been willing to fight.

By comparison in the War of Independance slavery was a very minor issue. Britain may have had it's abolition society by 1774 but it was hardly government policy by 1776. Had the revolution been delayed until 1807 then slavery would have been a major issue & the balance of right would have shifted to the British side. Equally had it been delayed that long it is unlikely that the northeren colonies would, by then, have supported an independance joined to slaveholding states.

[Huck]

Libertarianism and the WBTS on the same thread....not me.

Get used to it. They are your natural allies (as if libertarians weren't marginalized enough already.) Actually, I am glad neo-secessionist-confederate-Lincoln-haters and libertarians are miscegenated. Kills two birds.

[wardaddy]

Well, I guess I'll cling exclusively to my not terribly- libertarian conservative southern defending ideology on my own.

[wardaddy]

What's wrong with the majority ruling within reason? I hope if conservatives ever become the majority here that we squash the liberal ideology and reverse the tide of the culture war.

[borntodiefree]

It's amazing to me to see people pushing for their morality (that doesn't interfere with the liberty of another) to be imposed on those who disagree by force.

Then act suprised and disgusted when those enforcing the law interpret the morality in another way and the ones who pushed for the law initially are then disenfranchised.

Slavery is wrong. The North did not want to end slavery due to its immorality, it was due to the fact that the paid workers could not compete with those who were slaves.

The Federal Government was wrong...the South had the Right to sucede just like it had the right to ascede.

[Huck]

Slavery is wrong.

Why?

[borntodiefree]

I'll rephrase. Slavery can only be condoned for the payment of a crime and possibly a tort. There is also nothing wrong with indentured servitude.

However, taking ones person life and taking their liberties when they have violated no ones elses is evil and violated the very cannon of a free society and even more so, God's Law.