So how come racism, libertarianism, goldbuggery, and conspiritarding seem to correlate so well?

Yeah, but, like, they had to work, otherwise they'd starve. And they had to give a huge cut of the profits to the government.

To be fair not all libertarians are enamored with thinking Lincoln was an evil tyrant and slavery was some benign problem that would have faded.

lolwut?

I assume you're including the fact that he's building fortifications next to my dog house? And that he's bought a **** ton of my cotton?

Yeah, it's none?

Thread shows otherwise.

Well, we were happy to buy your cotton when we needed cheap cotton, but now we have more money, so we don't like the way you make your cotton.

False. No one said or remotely implied it was a benign problem.

Do you know what "benign" means?

No, please tell me how the market would have sorted it out anyways so the North should have just chilled out or payed for them like they were just troublesome pets. That kind of problem.

Just that the perpetrators of this "problem" should have been paid handsomely. On top of the obscene profits they've already made, of course.

Yeah sure, but that's not the kinda libertarians that our ACists and fellow travelers really like on this BBS. Our libertarian/ACists love the other kind... they love the "Austrian"-Racist-Conspiritarding-NeoConfederate-Goldbug kind... like Rothbard, Rockwell, and Paul.

Nice goalpost shift.

The perpetrators of the problem were everyone in the country.

A similar situation exists today in the meat industry. The meat industry isn't forcing factory bred, non-free range and otherwise immorally produced meat down our throats. The fault lies as much with the customers as with the industry itself.

So why is it that you think one small subset of the perpetrators should shoulder all the cost?

I actually didn't know this about Johnson.

Yeah "Austrians"/ACists... giving libertarians, anarchists, and people from Austria, a bad name on the interwebs since circa 2000.

As has been stated in this thread already neither side foresaw deaths in the hundreds of thousands, nor would I have if I were in charge at the time, probably.

But sure, I'll play your game, if you'll play mine. Let's see, apparently there was about 4 million slaves in the US in 1860, so I guess I will put my number there.

Now my turn. How many was it said upthread that died the Civil War? 600,000? So if you could go back in time and stop the war (and I assume you would), but this meant slavery would continue and you also were graced with the knowledge of just how long it would continue, would there be a cutoff date where you would say "never mind, I retroactively agree to the war having played out as it did?" What if it meant there was still slavery in the US today?


In moral terms? None. In political terms? I don't have a hardon for state's rights and I generally agree with the convention that you may intervene in your own country's affairs in a way you should be more reticent to of in inter-country affairs. What can I say? STATIST4LYFE


Is someone saying otherwise? Not me. Although, you did say he "didn't give a **** about slavery" and now you are saying "he may hated slavery personally." and I think the whole Emancipation Proclamation thing kinda bears that out.

As a "real" Libertarian


I agree.

Ir's a nice sentiment DBJ, but I suspect we wouldn't have to dig very deep into that org to find the nutjobs. The Libertarian party has a huge uphill battle to rid itself of the wingnuttery and gain respect.

Yea, but the process is beginning, and there's certainly a fair share of kooks in both parties.

I am happy here when certain posters refuse to support the LP because we're "statists".

Warms the cockles of my heart. Maybe in the subcockle area even.

I think the point most anti-Lincolnites in the thread have been trying to make is that Lincoln's motivation for waging the war wasn't to end slavery. Therein war wasn't a necessity to end slavery and that both peace and abolition could have been obtained under a more diplomatic regime.

I really don't know why so many pro-war posters itt and on this forum find this such a hard concept to, if not agree with, at least not denigrate to "wingnuttery".

Post hoc ergo propter hoc anyone?

No, this is not the case. Like, it's both possible that Lincoln didn't initially go to war to end slavery AND for war to be necessary to end slavery because of how deeply entrenched the South was re: its attitudes towards slavery. I mean, if you have one shred of evidence that the South was ready and willing to end slavery if only Lincoln had been a little bit more diplomatic, please share. Because you'd be completely running afoul of history.

What is clear is that the South's motivation for starting war was to preserve slavery. That's the most important fact here. What the **** kinda diplomatic process do you think should have been tried if the South is willing to go to war to preserve slavery? Oh, maybe we should have just given these morally bankrupt dudes some money?

I look on your post, ye mighty, and despair.

Incidentally, I think any ACist that doesn't support the LP because that are statists is being really stupid. ACism is a theory, the LP is a step in that direction. There is no chance of moving from a theory to actually putting the theory into practice if you are unable to work with the people that agree with you on the most points. I would like to eliminate the government, but we have to start somewhere, so working with groups that want to reduce the size of the government just makes sense.