[x]

If we can design taxes for the purpose of giving unfair advantages to a certain few at the expense of the rest, what is to stop us from simply allocating policy to advantage acertain few? If we can appropriate interventionary funding to the advantage of a certain economic entity over its competitors, what is to stop wider scale economic management and intervention by the government later? It may sound like a slippery slope because it is, but more so the policies such as those favored by The Lincoln allowed a foot in the door, which was incrementally pried open over the century that followed.

What is slavery, but a way of "giving unfair advantages to a certain few at the expense of" others -- and a way a good deal more savage than any protective tariff could be. That "foot" was already in the "door," and Lincoln's generation did much to get it out. To extract the profits of uncompensated labor and to use the resources of others to protect that compelled labor source dwarfs anything the Republican party ever did.

Every system of law, government, ownership, reward, or taxation will benefit some groups more than others. We are all on a "slippery slope" to unfair favor or tyranny or chaos and always have been. It was certainly true that the suppressed classes of the Old Republic saw unfair favor and tyranny exercised over their own lives. And it has been true since. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. But tariffs and trade duties are a question for political debate and discussion. When all those concerned are given a say in determining tariff levels and they exercise their voice effectively, tariffs are not in themselves acts of tyranny, and it's foolish to think them such.

On balance, though, Lincoln's influence brought greater liberty. Whether Lincoln's tariff policies were for the best is open to debate, but if you ignore or discount the connection felt at the time -- using tariffs to promote a free labor, industrial economy rather than an agrarian, slave, neo-colonial economy -- you don't do justice to Lincoln's generation and the alternatives they faced. Lincoln's policies may not have been the best choice, but Calhoun's marriage of free trade, slavery, and minority rule certainly deserved -- and deserves -- repudiation and condemnation.

And today, those who have expressed concern about globalization and the developing "New World Order" would perhaps agree that free trade does not necessarily bring freedom, nor protectionism inevitably result in tyranny.

[GOPcapitalist]

What is slavery, but a way of "giving unfair advantages to a certain few at the expense of" others

You tell me if that is your interest. But my question to you was not about slavery but the implications of the government action practiced by The Lincoln that you listed. Therefore as far as I am concerned, your attempt to throw the slavery red herring into the particulars of this discussion, not to mention your tu quoque equivocation by way of this issue, is little more than a diversionary tactic to assist you in avoiding the response I made to your earlier comment.

Now, returning to the discussion, you made the statement that certain aspects of The Lincoln's politics were not a recipe for big government tyranny. I challenged that assertion of yours and provided my reasons, which you then avoided. Do you care to address them now, and if so, please state your response.