Civil War arguments

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I never consensted to any law that prohibits me from killing, stealing, and raping random women. Perhaps I am not bound by those laws since I never signed a piece of paper where I agreed to such restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you seem to be conflating law and government (namely the necessity of the State to deem something "illegal"). Some laws are natural; there is a basic principle of property rights, which is logically consistent with human nature.

Read about it here.

Oh yeah, I am still waiting for a decent justification for the "two wrongs make a right" argument (slavery and death in order to end slavery). Additionally, I would like to know why popular opinion seems to believe that it was worth 600,000 lives in order to "preserve the union."

[XxGodJrxX]

I don't think the Civil War was about ending slavery, it was about saving the union. You're framing the question in such a way so that no answer can satisfy you. If instead of 600,000 deaths, there were only a hundred, you will still be against it. You will always be against it because you feel that it was wrong, and that is fine. Lincoln, and most people, do not feel that it is wrong. Since we do not feel that it is wrong, then the cost was worth it, especially in hindsight.

I think that when one talks about wars, preconceived notions of right and wrong grounded in morality are moot. A more utilitarian approach is more useful in my opinion. From a utilitarian point of view, it was in the Union's best interest to keep the south in the United States. I highly doubt that the United States would be as powerful as it is now if it had not preserved the union.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
From a utilitarian point of view, it was in the Union's best interest to keep the south in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt that the United States would be as powerful as it is now if it had not preserved the union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, okay... that's why. So you think that a powerful government is good for the utility of the people. For the moment, I will assume that interpersonal utility comparisions are feasible and that the concept of "ultilitarianism" has validity. You appear to be aware that the Civil War set the precedent for "big government." This means state forced involuntary servitude (conscription), an increase in coercive theft of property (taxes), and the many ineffecient government monopolies (run by bureaucracies). So you are telling me that society is better off because of these things? Death induced by slavery, extortion of funds, and the uniformity and inefficiency of government monopoly are REALLY good for society.

Now, given that it is a fact that interpersonal utility comparisions are not possible (humans are not homogenous)... imagine these things from the perspective of the individual?