I really hate when people repeatedly abuse a word. you are doing that to "fascist".

Btw, Any South was aggressed upon by tyrannical North types want to dicuss the ramifications of fugitive slave law http://www.masshist.org/longroad/01slavery/fsl.htm and Dred Scott Decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandfordwere aggresive invasions on rights of northeners to coduct their localities how they wished?

dvault,

Yes, what one does not do is as important as what they actually do.

Ahhh I think we're getting somewhere. I think I do have that answer.

Interesting, not sure how quite to respond to this. I will give it some time and think on it.

Also, you never answered the most important aspect of my post. I hope that you or someone who agrees with our position that taking a side of this war implies that you are also in favor of the consequences that occur from them.

I asked a question so that you might answer it, I guess I expected too much.

Rockwell has not coped to ghost-writing the newsletters under Paul's name, but close sources cited ITT have said over and over it's an 'open secret' that it was him. Maybe it wasn't, I have no proof. But SOMEBODY wrote them, yet nobody has had the balls to claim it as his own, despite intense pressure to fess up. How's that for integrity?

Also, when called out, they (they being the clack of neo klans-men-confederates lurking around LRC) not only refuse to admit who wrote it, they attack those who deplore the bigotry therein as part of some inside-the-beltway neocon cabal controlled by ZOG or some other crack-pot tin-foil conspiracy. Their behavior is pathetic and it's an embarrassment to have them as allies on a lot of other positions I happen to agree with them on.

The bigotry, or whatever you want to call it, is corrosive, divisive, and a massive net negative to the libertarian cause. I can understand now why lots of people where pissed off when they decided cobble their crew of johnny-rebs together under the good name of Von Mises.

How am I abusing the term fascist? So shutting down newspapers, sending political dissidents into dungeons by the tens of thousands, and suspending habeus corpus aren't fascist policies?

Fugitive slave laws were federal laws, the confederacy didn't impose them on the North. AGain, I'm not defending the Confederacy, just stating facts.

I asked a question too and I see no answer. Unless you show how there is actually any ambiguity, how do you expect me to think anything else?

Link?

Relevance?

And?

Did you not read that I already said I thought writing racially insensitive stuff is a terrible practice? No, you did read that. So what is the purpose of all this?

FWIW I raaarely read LRC. I have Mises blog in google reader but vhawk's characterization of their work is pretty right on and as such I find myself reading maybe a post a week. For economic analysis, which is what I'm looking for usually, there are far far better choices. LVMI's free online library is pretty good though.

you first

linked ITT

Because you don't seem to care who wrote it, or that it was written in the first place.

Those were my final thoughts, this thread has run its course, really, I don't have much more to say.

None of those things are central fascism. George III wasnt a fascist either and those policies occurred during his reign. Wikipedia has some good example definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Etymology

The confederacy was made of southern states that felt they were being oppressed by big bad Feds. The southern states used big bad fed powers to enforce fugitive slave law in boston and other abolitionist areas. Dred Scott case made the right to hold slaves in any state in the union the law of the land since a slave owner could not lose claim to the slave by residing with the slave in a free state. This was a federally oppressive ruling that was largely the result of southern slave owners having predominate FEDERAL power on supreme court.

In the tariff theory of the war that you adopted from racists, don't you claim that Northern business interests imposed tariffs on the South? But weren't those tariffs federal policy?

You are defending the Confederacy. Stating facts? I don't think you really want to start playing the "actual historical events" game with this one.

Libertarians winning friends with their position on the Civil War... LOLz

The OP should read..."How to talk about the Civil War on the interwebz because your friends won't let you ramble on about it anymore ."

Yes, let's ignore all the other instances where Rothbard spoke about how the South was wrong with its slavery and go on pretending otherwise. Let's pretend that the instances where he condemned slavery and specifically said the South was wrong for it didn't outnumber that single quote you quoted.

Are you done being intellectually dishonest yet?

Let's ignore that Lincoln campaigned on abolishing slavery and signed the 13th amendment, though?

No True Civil War Position fallacy ldo

I agree, if we ignore all the stuff Rothbard said about raising statues in Forrest's honor, and the South fighting for honor, and ignore DiLorenzo's characterization where he explicitly says that equating the North to the South and "apox on both their houses" is muddled headed confusion, you're right, they're absolutely positively consistent that both sides were equally wrong.

And I'm intellectually dishonest. Sheesh.

Post # five-hundred and something in the apologists "look over there!" quest. Good luck, it's working out well so far. Would suck to have to trot out the quotes from Rothbard DiLorenzo Rockwell and the LotS again and again, I mean I'm not at all looking forward to that.

Notice that all your buddies waved the white flag ages ago ITT, not counting the rest who were too smart to even engage in it at all and gleefully admit that libertarians and ACists et al who spend their time defending this stuff are masochists. Probably time to take their cue.

No, Lincoln campaigned to stopping the expansion of slavery, not on abolishing it in states where it already existed. He even prohibited his generals from freeing slaves even in captured territories during the beginning of the war. Once again you are dishonest.

Nice try, but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Blahblahblah Rothbard said statues of Forrest blahblahblah" isn't going to cut it.

You keep asserting that one cannot both condemn slavery and support the South's right to secession, but you offer nothing but more assertions to back this up. For instance, when presented with Spooner's argument on the issue, you just ignore it and go on asserting your nonsense.

Nice try, but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "blahblahblah look over there and stop focusing on the published stuff of Rothbard and DiLorenzo where they clearly contradict everything I'm claiming they said they believe blahblhblhah" isn't going to cut it.

Do I need to go back now and cite all the people who claim they never read Rothbard and Rockwell and DiLorenzo because they're ldo toxic? I'm happy to do it; I thought these guys were cherished institutions, turns out hardly any libertarians in this forum actually reads their ****.

Ok and you have yet to show any published stuff of either of those two that supports the institution of slavery. The only thing you have done is assert that by supporting the South's right to secession, you are supporting slavery, which is stupid.

I don't care about what those people have read, you are talking to me now. I have read Rothbard. I've read some of DiLorenzo's stuff. Now address me and quit shifting this crap to other people.

The white flag was waved because of the relentless goalpost shifting and point-dropping.

Those not engaging in it were smart. They knew exactly what tactics would be employed.

[/thread]

Let me help you out here: Lincoln ran for President twice.

The combination of ignorance of basic facts and stridency in defending the south's secession is troubling.

Because I went through the trouble:

QF Libertarians Distancing Themselves From Rockwell/Mises/Rothbard

This is where the thread devolves into insanity, lol

"I'm not a fan of mises" does not equate to "they provide no intellectual value to the discussion" but thanks for taking me out of context.

I actually went to the league of the south's web page, the one that DiLorenzo is a member of and found this http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/statementonracism.shtml

Mabey im just not able to decode the secret code words, but it doesnt seem like the organization itself promotes racism. They most likely have racists in the organization, since they are in the south, but its hard to know exaclty how open it would be at their meeting. It might be that they are for race peace on their site and then their meetings are simply KKK rallies.

But the point is, is that I still have not seen much evidence of Rothbard and DiLorenzo's Racism. We definately have some questionable quotes but when you post those without also posting all the anti-racist things they have said it simply seems like your arguements are extremely lacking in context. And remember I dont care much about DiLorenzo or Rothbard, I could care less about racism, what bothers me is just how blown out of proportion other members on this forum have taken it. We now have Fly in the econ forum "allowing" us to have our place to talk about racist economics.

I still need to look up the Forrest charge, but mabey when I get some time I will look into. I wouldnt be surprised if its something thats been blown out of proportion.

obviously there is some crazy stuff on that site, but its most definately an equal opportunity kind of crazy

The reason I don't read Mises isn't because I think it is a racist site; I'm not distancing myself from them. I'm sure there's a lot of good information on there. I don't read it because I think I have my own libertarian philosophy pretty much figured out and I'm not really interested in reading more on the topic.