Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's much more to it than just being "tired" of being ruled by another group of people. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had little to no representation. Before the Civil War the South DID have representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Representation binds them absolutely?

[ QUOTE ]
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So what? Representation binds them absolutely?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not absolutely. 50.1% of the country can't make slaves of the other 49.9%, even if made law.

[ QUOTE ]
How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can we be sure that all those in the South wanted such seperation?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what? Representation binds them absolutely?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not absolutely. 50.1% of the country can't make slaves of the other 49.9%, even if made law.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the union is free to enslave the confederacy? I don't understand where you're going with this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can a nation founded on this idea oppose the voluntary seperation of any group?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can we be sure that all those in the South wanted such seperation?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but thanks for yet another strawman. Of course, there were loyalists in the colonies, and there were northerners that opposed "reunification efforts".

I'm not here to defend the CSA. It certainly wasn't a paragon of virtue. However, the idea that any regime that isn't 100% completely legitimate is fair game for any other non-100% completely legitimate regime to conquer, subjugate, and pillage is, frankly, repulsive.

[XxGodJrxX]

[ QUOTE ]

The ultimate "might makes right" post. Don't worry about whether an act is criminal or not, if it works to YOUR benefit, and you can get away with it, then do it. Awesome. Thank you for illustrating the real evil of statism.

[/ QUOTE ]

A crime is only comitted when there is a law that is broken. There are no ACTUAL laws in the international arena. Therefore, it follows that there are not really any crimes.
International laws and the UN are not actually laws in my opinion, since they do not have any effect on any but the weakest states.

I find it hard to believe, that in a web-forum populated by so called "anarchists", that there would be all this talk about the Civil War being immoral and criminal. Newsflash: when there is anarchy, might ALWAYS makes right. If that was not the case, then the United States would not invest 25% of its total GDP in the military. Don't ever underestiamte the persuasive power of a big gun.

I may be getting side-tracked here, but if there is ever a state where there is actual anarchy, like some of the people on this forum advocate, it would collapse very quickly. Inside, there would be a Hobbesian slaughter, and either a new government would be formed, or another country will come in and take over. THAT is why government is necessary, and saying that "so-and-so was a bad president because he did too much" won't win over that many supporters. Presidents are bad when they do things that are detrimental to the country, not when they do too much.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But the union is free to enslave the confederacy? I don't understand where you're going with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I hope you at least see the irony of your statement.

I think that representation in this case does mean there is a binding effect. Like a contract, I guess. You can't dissolve a contract if the other signatory doesn't agree, can you?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
A crime is only comitted when there is a law that is broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

So before anybody wrote down "thou shall not kill" it was right and just to murder? But after someone wrote it down it was suddenly not OK?

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe, that in a web-forum populated by so called "anarchists", that there would be all this talk about the Civil War being immoral and criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Possibly because you have a limited view of anarchy. Not all anarchists desire chaos.

[ QUOTE ]
Newsflash: when there is anarchy, might ALWAYS makes right. If that was not the case, then the United States would not invest 25% of its total GDP in the military. Don't ever underestiamte the persuasive power of a big gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're saying is might makes might. Duh.

[ QUOTE ]
I may be getting side-tracked here, but if there is ever a state where there is actual anarchy, like some of the people on this forum advocate, it would collapse very quickly. Inside, there would be a Hobbesian slaughter, and either a new government would be formed, or another country will come in and take over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? It is possible for people to cooperate voluntarily to defend against aggressors. What magic does government bring to this effort?

[ QUOTE ]
THAT is why government is necessary, and saying that "so-and-so was a bad president because he did too much" won't win over that many supporters. Presidents are bad when they do things that are detrimental to the country, not when they do too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bank robbery is good, *as long as you're the bank robber.*

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the union is free to enslave the confederacy? I don't understand where you're going with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I hope you at least see the irony of your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only ironic if you look at the situation in a limited way. The fact that CSA allowed slavery (which the USA also did) justifies enslaving the entire country and killing 600,000 people? Two wrongs make a right?

[ QUOTE ]
I think that representation in this case does mean there is a binding effect. Like a contract, I guess. You can't dissolve a contract if the other signatory doesn't agree, can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who in the CSA signed any contract with the Union?

[NobodysFreak]

[ QUOTE ]
Slavery is a side issue. It existed all over the world, and ended (on a large scale, at least) world wide without bloody multi-year conflicts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it ended world wide because of our bloody multi-year conflict?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the US was probably the last of the western nations to abolish slavery. Prior to the invention of the cotton gin American cotton was getting to expensive to produce even with slaves as compared to North African cotton. After the invention of the cotton gin, slavery had its second wind in America

Before all of this, England and France, the two other major colonial powers, had abolished slavery in their colonies.

[XxGodJrxX]

In order.

It has never been right or just to murder. It has also never been wrong or unjust to murder. The creation of governments (laws) and religion (morals) are what created the concepts of right and justice. I am willing to be flexible about this, since there are people with religious convictions and there are many different theories of government. Not everybody can agree with this, and that is okay. It is what I think.

You may be right, not all anarchists desire chaos. On the other hand, chaos is the inevitable result of anarchy. It seems to me that the anarchist's idealism clouds his vision on what would happen were there no real consequences in the form of laws.

Let me put it this way. Might does not make right, since there is not really any such thing as RIGHT. The only right is what is in our own best-interests, so what is right for me may be criminal for you.

And for the last two. Governments make such institutions as banks and military possible. The reason that we do not kill each other and rob banks is because we fear the punishment that would be bestowed upon us by the government. We fear the government because it is the most powerful entity we can immediately observe. The government, since it has the power to do so, makes various rules, and if we do not obey them, then we are punished. This goes for all types of governemnts, including Democracies, where we willingly give the government the power to do this.

On the other hand, if there is no governemnt, and we had the responsibility ourselves, then there would not longer be a strongest entity. What that would lead to is internal wars among the citizens, until one person or group is the most powerful, and he/they would then be the government. With no government, there is constant fear of being killed, and constant battle with everybody else. Governemnts are created by the people, which means at one point, there was a state of anarchy. If anarchy is such a good thing, then why would the people have created governemnts in the first place? It is because they saw the need for a central authorityo to protect them from being slaughtered.

Bank robbery is not a good thing, not because it is "wrong" to rob banks, but because we will be thrown in prison or killed by the people that make the banks possible. Therefore, robbing banks is -EV.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Who in the CSA signed any contract with the Union?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Constitution is the "contract", I suppose. They established the Constitution partly to form a "more perfect Union". So trying to set up a new nation is detrimental to that goal. I'll admit I don't know as much as I'd like to about this area.