/liberty/ - Liberty

>>13321

>one side is more libertrarian than the other

doesn't mean we support it

Who >>>/natsoc/ here?

It's obvious to me (and others) that even with "dictatorship," the Third Reich would have been more Libertarian and supported more Libertarian rights than Stalin did, setting the standard to lead to a Voluntary society.

Who >>>/sage/ here?

It's obvious to me (and others) that even with "shilling," the Board would have been more memetic and supported more dank rights than the BO administration did, setting the standard to lead to a Shill-free Board.

The war was fought over state's rights. Primarily to own slaves, but taxation was also a major issue.

>>13346

>>13321

The war violated those states rights to secession, it was no longer a willing union after that.

I would have supported the south, despite being a northerner.

>>13323

>muh slaves

>muh Lincoln-dickings

The South supported secession, an end to the electoral college, and slowly transitioning out of slavery via automation instead of mass importation of spics. The North was intent on fucking around with the economy and bitching about the South, same as today.

Where exactly do you draw that the South was somehow the bad guys in this situation?

>>13331

>>13343

Kill yourself. You're the sort who think that pure philosophy is superior to practically trying to applicate it to the real world.

>>13346

>>13356

Glad to see anons who understand where I'm coming from.

>>13356

Slavery was a moral wrong, and the abolitionists had a duty to protect the lives of the slaves rightfully in their jurisdiction before any sort of ethical secession could take place tbh fam.

>>13368

Reminder that there were slave states in the union.

Reminder that those slaves were not freed by the emancipation proclamation and had to wait until the ratification of the 13th ammendment in 1865.

>civil war was about economics and not slavery

>implying slavery can't be an economic question

>>13399

Slavery was an economic question.

Slaves were a resource. We need to stop pretending that slavery violates an NAP unless we're ready to admit that owning a pet would similarly violate the NAP.

>>13401

>>13402

Show me proof that animals are sentient and I'll accept that you're not full of shit.

>>13401

This:

>>13403

Although I demand proof of sapience, not sentience.

>>13403

Show me that you are sentient.

>>13403

https://archive.is/ZNZWX

>Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

Most animals are by definition sentient. The word you're looking for is "sapient" of which some animals (monkeys, dolphins, one or two bird species) are also considered to be.

>>13404

Unfortunately it's a little difficult to scrounge up neutral sources in this day and age without going back to the original historical documents (which, online, have typically been edited in most cases). I'll try to answer your questions though to the best of my ability (keep in mind while my family is southern, I was born and raised on the great plains).

>What rights exactly did the south (and by extension, other states) lose after the civil war?

To answer this question, we need to go a little further back. This article isn't horrible at giving a very brief overview: https://archive.is/2QMUU

After England decided that the USA wasn't worth their time and money, the states (which considered themselves sovereign entities) had to decide on how they would be governed. Originally the country almost didn't come to be because the founding fathers hated each other/refused to agree on anything. Literally the only reason they all FINALLY got together and agreed on anything at all was because Dr. Franklin bless his soul who was loved/respected by virtually all the founding fathers (he was the only one they refused to address on a first name basis out of respect), gave a speech on his death bed convincing them to band together. They literally brought his bed in with him on it and had one of his assistants read off his speech because he had no voice left. (read here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_917.asp)

With these states begrudgingly joining together, the United States was born.

Anyways, fast forward a bit, the ninth and tenth amendments were strictly meant to give individual states sovereignty and to be recognized as individual countries that worked together under a united banner. It's not so much what rights were lost, so much as the precedent it set. With the conclusion of the civil war, states were no longer considered sovereign entities, but were instead considered subservient to the federal body. The civil war eliminated the rights to secede from the union as well as eliminating the concept of states rights entirely. The Federal government (after the war) had a precedent to set any standard they'd like, and the states had to comply. Instead of being "all rights not explicitly mentioned by the constitution are the responsibility of the state," it became "all rights not explicitly procured by the federal government can be given to the state." Combined with the shitty electoral college (https://archive.is/ccYx3) and you can see the issues with it. As for your other questions…

>>13404

>but would you say that it was, at the end of the day, necessary for freedom in the United States?

I wouldn't say it was originally. What happened is an entire college-level history class, but the basic idea is that the South was forced to use slavery in order to keep an economic edge in the face of the North's fucking around with them as they always have. It was artificially created, but it was necessary for freedom -because- it had been artificially created.

>It seems like this sort of thing (i.e. illegalizing slavery) is necessary in a free society.

I don't believe it is necessary and it wasn't necessary up until the last two centuries, much in the same way that love was considered nice, but the purpose of marriage was reproduction in a steady household up until the 1920s/30s.

If they are on the homefront, then slavery is perfectly morally acceptable so long as they willingly signed a contract inb4 /leftypol/ makes a fuss with an improbably scenario that would never exist and their children aren't subject to it. If they came from overseas and were a "bought good" so to speak, then slavery still isn't too questionable (arguably slave life could be better than living back home) so long as the slave owner provides food/shelter only a tiny fraction of a minority of slave owners abused their slaves like you see in all of the movies/books/etc. and provides them with a way to buy their freedom (much in the same way that Danes allowed captured Englishmen soldiers to buy back their freedom by working a Danish farm for 3-5 years).

>Is there anything flawed with the 13th amendment in particular or did you just not like how it was enforced/brought about?

See above. I don't believe slavery is a violation of the NAP or really a violation of a free society in general so long as it's done voluntarily. Most Voluntarists are quick to denounce slavery because they've been raised to think it's a horrible institution that violates rights, and thus refuse to look at it from the perspective of if someone voluntarily sold themselves into slavery. The definition of slave is "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." If the slave signed a contract to be a slave, then they are "forced" by the contract. Effectively they are a "permanent" indentured servant. Really there's not too much difference between a slave "work or I'll whip you" and a Mexican agri-factory worker today "work or I'll deport you."

That being said, I think the concept of slavery in a modern society with modern automation is absolutely ludicrous and would only be done out of spite. The South was automating quickly, and would have been fine if given another two decades. Instead, we had kin killing kin over Lincoln's statist temper tantrums. Therefore, my answer is "both."

>Would you say a stronger union was good for the United States in the long run?

Fuck no, and this effectively made the union weaker. The South would have rejoined the North eventually as equals rather than inferiors, or the North would have been absorbed by Canada. Without the South being exploited, the North could have never afforded 90% of the shit they would end up doing to this country.

>Some argue that without a stronger union brought about by the Lincoln administration, America would be ill equipped to handle future problems such as the world wars and other crises.

The world wars are another matter entirely, but needless to say, America illegally intervened in the Great war, and World War 2 would have never happened if we had just stayed out of it (peace negotiations were well underway and becoming better and better for both sides before America intervened over shitty information). I would have preferred if we stayed out of international affairs that don't concern us. The North, having realized they can't afford their bullshit, would have learned the full meaning of the word austerity and would have been better off for it instead of becoming spoiled brats.

>>13414

Does slavery not violate the non-aggression Axiom? It's not simply a contract after all; there's no exit clause and no way to "buy your way out" if you don't own yourself (much less other property).

Slavery wasn't a big issue, and it was in many ways even preferable to life under a state, but I'm pretty sure it did violate non-aggression axioms, both by making any application of contracts self-detonating and by actually requiring aggression in the first place to capture, imprison/punish, and recapture slaves. Enslavement of the children of slaves is simply immoral in the first place.

Mind you slavery existed in the north too and waging war is about as evil as it gets, so I'm not defending the shitty behavior of the north.

>>13415

>It's not simply a contract after all; there's no exit clause and no way to "buy your way out" if you don't own yourself (much less other property).

None of these two things are required for other contracts. You can't buy yourself out of a marriage contract, either, and there doesn't need to be an exit clause in it.

>>13417

Were there even contracts in a majority of cases in American slavery? As far as I know, the slaves were just shipped over from Africa and never given any choice in the matter, and their children typically were born into slavery. So, as it tended to occur in America, slavery would absolutely have violated the NAP whether most masters beat their slaves or not. A lot of them were already slaves when they were brought over from Africa, of course, but I really think that affects things from a moral standpoint.

>>13420

>(there is nothing inherently "wrong" in the NAP with buying someone who's already a slave so long as you didn't fund their capture)

I mean, there kind of is, unless I'm somehow misunderstanding things. You can't legitimately buy something from someone if they, themselves, do not have the right to sell it. And, if the slave did not enter the contract willingly, then the slave's "owner" does not have any legitimate claim to him in the first place and cannot sell him. Really, the slave should just be freed as soon as possible.

>>13421

Depends on jurisdiction. My example assumes that different nations and cultures exist.

Obviously if we're looking at one region, then I think your criticism holds up just fine.

>Muh Confedrayshun

>Implying that the CSA actually gave a shit about state's rights

>Implying that the CSA wasn't just an excuse for the pseudo-aristocratic plantation elites to fuck around with everyone else

>Implying that the Republican party wasn't founded as a ground coalition against the EXPANSION of the slavery being pushed by the plantation elite at the expense of free yeoman farmers, along with the nascent capitalist class.

Really, the South just seceded because they actually had to listen to the rest of the country and lost their ability to force the North to enforce Fugitive Slave Laws. Hell, the fucking Confederate Constitution is just a carbon copy of the American Constitution, even with the amendments attached.

Jefferson Davis suspended Habeas Corpus as well, and he became ever more and more arbitrary as the Civil War went on. There were actually slightly more regulations in the South due to a domestic passport system. So even in the individualistic negative sense of liberty, the CSA is a fucking failure.

Hell, most of the Confederate military didn't give a fuck about the "cause" and just did it out of "My State, Right or Wrong". Take Longstreet, for example. He ended up turning into a Republican post-Civil War and led a black militia against the 19th century's version of a white nationalist riot.

Of course, the Union weren't exactly saints either, but the South was a shit-hole, at least compared to the Union's countryside. (I find it ironic that the ideal of the free yeoman farmer would be achieved in the NORTH and the West, and not in the land from which Thomas Jefferson hailed from.) Meanwhile, poor whites were forced to be either vagabonds or own shit-tier land in the back-country because all the good land was hogged by the slave-owning planters.

>>13422

Well, here's the thing: I don't view it as being wrong from a legal standpoint, I view it as being wrong from a moral standpoint. No matter what your nation or culture, you are not allowed to own another person as property without their explicit, fully informed consent. In other words, the slave was never the slave owner's legitimate property, and so rightful ownership of said slave cannot be transferred (because it never really existed). As soon as the slave is moved to any place where the laws are actually morally sound, I think the contract would be voided immediately and the slave would be considered a free man.

I mean, by that logic, anything would be morally acceptable so long as the law of the land says it's okay, and I don't think you'll find many libertarians who adopt that stance.

>>13426

I should probably point out that it's one thing when you have different states who disagree and general patterns which give rise to opposing political parties, and another thing entirely when the results obviously show that one side is forcing the other side to conform to their standards.

>>13424

>I don't view it as being wrong from a legal standpoint, I view it as being wrong from a moral standpoint.

Great. I'm right there with you. Don't go around legislating morality or you might accidentally become a democrat/republican.

>No matter what your nation or culture, you are not allowed to own another person as property without their explicit, fully informed consent.

And there are legitimate arguments for that. I'm simply pointing out that being a slave with the ability to earn your freedom by going to another country is preferable to being a slave to someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about liberty, property, etc. If that buyer in New Hampshire wants to free you as soon as they acquire you, they can go right ahead, its their loss if the slave doesn't turn a profit.

>In other words, the slave was never the slave owner's legitimate property, and so rightful ownership of said slave cannot be transferred (because it never really existed).

I was going to use my Ukrainian girl example from above again, but you did leave in that caveat of "without their explicit, fully informed consent."

I think we need to keep in mind that the slave owner in Kenya I'm pretty sure Kenya outlawed slavery, not the point doesn't give a shit about property rights, human rights, etc. I have no desire to try and improve that person's lot in life (outside of charity, which is likely going to be more focused on the homefront) unless I know I'm getting my investment back. To this end, slavery could be considered a moral prerogative to give those people a better shot at life because the strict sense of property rights encourages you to get the cheap labor, bring them into your home, take care of them while they make you a profit, and then let them live their own life (I don't see any distinct difference between a slave, an indentured servant, and an apprentice when we're referring to private ownership of another individual. The only difference is the nature of the contract. It's the state that makes the immoral slave). Obviously I'm hoping that automation is gonna eliminate any need for a physical human body slave in the first place.

>As soon as the slave is moved to any place where the laws are actually morally sound, I think the contract would be voided immediately and the slave would be considered a free man.

And thus, no one would ever help out the regions where slaves could potentially be, and said individuals will be stuck in abject poverty… And still be slaves.

>I mean, by that logic, anything would be morally acceptable so long as the law of the land says it's okay, and I don't think you'll find many libertarians who adopt that stance.

Depends. There's three main viewpoints that Libertarians work off of (obviously with a lot of overlap).

You have natural rights libertarianism, which states that results be damned, natural rights (the NAP) must be protected. This can usually be backed up with showing how property rights improve a society (this is where many Libertarians from the 90s/early 2000s fall in. The "Ron Paul" camps).

You have liberation libertarianism, which is focused on liberation from the state, rules, norms, etc. This is where your modern (Students For Liberty, post-2008 Libertarians) come from. They're sometimes called "bleeding heart" libertarians because they'll use the most consequentialist/utilitarian models.

Then you have "federalist" libertarians. These are your more old school Libertarians (and small government conservatives) that believe that each individual is a sovereign entity, and thus in balancing the efficiency-autonomy curves/distributed costs-concentrated benefits (as an individual by themselves is inefficient), local sovereignty (either a town or a state) is the best option (this is where most nationalist tendencies spawn from in Libertarian movements).

Obviously this is referring to how Libertarians see the end results, and not the arguments used such as Anti-Utopianism argumentation.

While natural rights libertarians would disagree with my argument, a more federalist (or in some cases bleeding heart libertarian) would be able to get behind it rather easily.

Tbh I just hate niggers and want to genocide them

t. everyone in this thread

>>13410

I'm arguing with you right now. Isn't that enough proof right off the bat?

>>13426

>Electoral College

The Electoral College actually BENEFITED the South. The South's population was extremely small compared to the North's. The Electoral College actually gave the Southern States an equal voice to the North. Not to mention that the South was gaining more and more control over politics, despite being less populated than the North, until Lincoln became president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power

>Farmhands

>Not owning your property

Most of the non-planters in the South only owned the shitty land. The good land all went to the rich-ass planters. Being a farmhand is a shit-tier position and is contrary to the American ideal.

>Likes the Constitution

You do know that the Constitution EXPANDED the Federal government's power at the expense of the states. Ironically, most of the anti-Federalist revolts happened NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line. (Along with the initial events that started the American Revolution, while the South just sat there like lazy asshats.)

The Confederate Constitution actually made it MORE explicit that states can't secede. (Especially since West Virginia seceded from Virginia.)

Sherman's March happened 4 years after the war started. The Confederacy actually had it's own brutal commanders, especially one guerrilla commander who terrorized the state of Missouri.

Reminder that Lincoln only outlawed slavery in an attempt to ruin the southern economy to increase his stranglehold on it.

>>13446

>guerrilla commander

Protip: if one side has guerrilla forces, it's because it's the victim of imperialism

I really don't see how the confederacy was any better than the Union or even the United States. Even if it were conceded that the Confederacy had a smaller and therefore less destructive state (which, given the economic state of the south, both private and public, after the war, is dubious) it was literally a copy of the US.

Where is the NAP? They're still extorting property, mounting invasions, executing people, attacking those who cross their borders, and overseeing censorship/propaganda programs.

Whether or not it was an improvement, it was still wrong.

>>13452

The Union also had guerrilla forces.

Seriously, go read a fucking book on the Civil War's Western Front.

Also, Missouri never seceded. Bill Anderson invaded the state with his army and sacked it like what Sherman did.

Also, the South actually invaded the states that didn't secede and generally had the more aggressive strategy for most of the war. (Until Sherman came in.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushwhacker