NY Times: Libertarians Soft on Slavery, Confused About Civil War

[Nobexliberty]

I have reached a point where I dont even want to read these articles anymore, whatever lie/deception tactic they used would run laps around the net before the truth is able to ties its laces. Rand needs to make a big speech to dispel any idea that he supports slavery and end it on that note. He cannot ignore this issue.

The Paul family knows how to deal with this, I am sure about it.

 

[dillo]

I hate slavery and I hate Lincoln

 

[torchbearer]

wtf is soft on slavery?
is it because we don't have a debate on slavery, because, well, there is no debate on it. it is immoral.
what we do debate is how much a murderer Lincoln was.
but since we don't include slavery in the debate, because of the obvious reasons above, and because lincoln would have gladly kept slavery if it would keep his government in control of all the resources in this country, the libtards says we are soft on slavery?

well, liberals and neocons have hard-ons for slavery. just look at the income tax. fuckers.

 

[phill4paul]

wtf is soft on slavery?
is it because we don't have a debate on slavery, because, well, there is no debate on it. it is immoral.
what we do debate is how much a murderer Lincoln was.
but since we don't include slavery in the debate, because of the obvious reasons above, and because lincoln would have gladly kept slavery if it would keep his government in control of all the resources in this country, the libtards says we are soft on slavery?

well, liberals and neocons have hard-ons for slavery. just look at the income tax. fuckers.

Pretty much. +rep.

 

[Nobexliberty]

wtf is soft on slavery?
is it because we don't have a debate on slavery, because, well, there is no debate on it. it is immoral.
what we do debate is how much a murderer Lincoln was.
but since we don't include slavery in the debate, because of the obvious reasons above, and because lincoln would have gladly kept slavery if it would keep his government in control of all the resources in this country, the libtards says we are soft on slavery?

well, liberals and neocons have hard-ons for slavery. just look at the income tax. fuckers.

+1814

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That is good , but was he that dem congressman from Ga ? LOL

No, just a fellow in one of my graphic design classes. I brought up the subject of RP and he was very enthusiastic about it-wanted to know how to vote for him in the (then) upcoming primary and so on.

 

[HigherVision]

The NY Times part of the government controlled network,ie, The CCCP is WRONG:


“Though I think Lincoln was the worst tyrant in U.S. history and his war was illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, I do not think the [Confederacy] was some quasi-libertarian bastion of freedom or justified,” said Stephan Kinsella. “The real enemy is, as always, the State — whether it be the USA or the [Confederate States of America].”

.

I don't agree with saying that it's simply the state that's the only enemy. The real enemy is violence in all forms. Government is violence of course, but if people outside of government commit violence it's just as bad. And if a limited amount of government violence is necessary to prevent a greater amount of violence that would occur without government's existence then this is preferable. Such is the case with border security.

 

[Contumacious]

I don't agree with saying that it's simply the state that's the only enemy. The real enemy is violence in all forms. Government is violence of course, but if people outside of government commit violence it's just as bad. And if a limited amount of government violence is necessary to prevent a greater amount of violence that would occur without government's existence then this is preferable. Such is the case with border security.

The state has police powers

Afro-americans citizens had the right to complain about involuntary servitude and deserved state protection. They also had the right to carry firearms to defend themselves.

The state refused to protect and allowed private individuals to enslave them

As noted by the dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), NOTHING in the US Constitution diminished their rights.

.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Rights are natural, and are discovered by humans through logic. They are not "made up" by humans. I mean, humans do make up rights, just the same as children make up superheroes. But, those made up rights like universal healthcare lead to aggression, violence, and ultimately the end of humanity. So "rights" that destroy life such as these are obviously no rights at all.

One either accepts this, or accepts that they seek the end of humanity... just as one can either accept that he has fallen off a cliff and is about to die, or he can lie to himself... until he hits the ground.

This^^ Rights exist in nature and are discovered by rational inquiry-just like laws of physics.

 

[Nobexliberty]

This^^ Rights exist in nature and are discovered by rational inquiry-just like laws of physics.

No they are made up by who has the power to decide the rights. In revolutionary Americas case the founding fathers and congress, in the modern western world the mainstream media(s) and goverment. The bill of rights is just words on paper with alot of history until authorities care about it.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

No they are made up by who has the power to decide the rights. In revolutionary Americas case the founding fathers and congress, in the modern western world the mainstream media(s) and goverment. The bill of rights is just words on paper with alot of history until authorities care about it.

I guess we need to define what a "right" is then.

I believe there are "natural rights" that coincide with nature, in that violation of them has consequences, similar to gravity (as mentioned by HB and SOL). In the future we may be able to create a "rights plane" similar to an air plane that allows a form of government to navigate natural rights without violating them, maybe.

edit: other rights that are not natural are not rights but wants and controls.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't agree with saying that it's simply the state that's the only enemy. The real enemy is violence in all forms. Government is violence of course, but if people outside of government commit violence it's just as bad. And if a limited amount of government violence is necessary to prevent a greater amount of violence that would occur without government's existence then this is preferable. Such is the case with border security.

The context of Kinsella's arguments was based on the CSA being better than the USA, and as such, he's perfectly legitimate in saying the State is the real enemy.

He also didn't say the State was the only enemy. Those were your words.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I forgot about it.

Because nations represent their peoples. Humans are not the same and will not be as long as I live, goverment gets their rights from people who give their goverment rights based on culture.

There are many different cultures represented in the US. Would it make sense, then, to dissolve the federal government and allow those differing cultures to govern themselves?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No they are made up by who has the power to decide the rights.

Rothbard and the other Natural Law philosophers proved this incorrect.

In revolutionary Americas case the founding fathers and congress, in the modern western world the mainstream media(s) and goverment. The bill of rights is just words on paper with alot of history until authorities care about it.

This I agree with, sort of. The BoR is just a formal legal recognition of the self-evident.