Presidential Election: 2012

[Keef]

What they do inside their national borders is not a problem for another nation to attempt to solve, beyond diplomatic relations. The only requirements for a nation to exist are its people, its territory, and its government, all of which were established by the CSA.

The slaves were not American citizens at the time, which means the North was not justified in going to war to recover citizens whom had been violated. Strike one. It is a known fact that Abraham Lincoln did not go to war to end slavery; he went to war because the South seceded. Strike two. The war against the South, which had established national borders and government (but had yet to be recognized by the North for obvious reasons), was undeclared, and therefore unconstitutional by the North's own constitution, our Constitution. Strike three. The Civil War was no different than Vietnam or Korea - the USA stepping into another nation's business and straightening it out to fit with our own interests.

 

[Tornado]

The slaves were not American citizens at the time, which means the North was not justified in going to war to recover citizens whom had been violated. Strike one.

Each slave was 3/5ths of a citizen according to that same Constitution at the time.

It is a known fact that Abraham Lincoln did not go to war to end slavery; he went to war because the South seceded. Strike two.

It is also a known fact that South Carolina seceded in the first place because Lincoln being elected was the writing on the wall for slavery. That was basically their entire reasoning for doing it.

The war against the South, which had established national borders and government (but had yet to be recognized by the North for obvious reasons), was undeclared, and therefore unconstitutional by the North's own constitution, our Constitution. Strike three.

This has nothing to do with whether the war was justified. This has to do with whether the war was carried out in a way that was Constitutional.

 

[ChaosStar79]

It has nothing to do with intervening in anything - nor does it have anything to do with whether or not it is a good idea for our country to intervene - and whether we are currently stretched (we are in some ways, aren't in others), has no bearing on it either.

We do have the right to invade any nation currently committing human rights atrocities (enslaving an entire population would certainly count). Should we? Dunno. There are lots of factors. Factors like, what's in it for us? Do we have the resources? Is this the most effective use of those resources? These are questions about whether or not to intervene. None of them have any bearing on whether or not we are justified in intervening.

I could not disagree more. While one may feel he has a right to protect the weak, or even a moral obligation to do so, no outsider has the right to go into a foreign county and use force to change the way that country works. That's the point of national sovereignty. We group to live as we see fit, and govern ourselves. Attempts to force compliance on other countries for their human rights violations, while our own country maintains death camps under the guise of detention centers, are all for show. Our nation is no more worried about human rights than the countries that we would invade. It's a pretty slippery slope when we start giving the 'right to invade' to any country based on their assessment of actions.

What if one day the rest of the world wakes up and starts knocking on our door asking about black sites, water boarding, assassinations, kidnappings, etc that are clear and documented human rights violations? Would they then have the right and/or responsibility to invade us and change our way of life as they see fit?

 

[Keef]

Each slave was 3/5ths of a citizen according to that same Constitution at the time.

They were not citizens (as if 3/5 equals 1 in the first place). They were counted as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes. They enjoyed no rights of a citizen. Article 1, section 2, paragraph 3.

It is also a known fact that they seceded in the first place because Lincoln being elected was the writing on the wall for slavery in the country after decades of it being a pretty big problem.

"The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution does not give the United States the power to prevent a State from seceding, nor does it prohibit the States from seceding, which means the power of secession is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Therefore, it is perfectly legal for a State government to secede from the Union, or for the people of that State to petition their government to leave the Union.

This has nothing to do with whether the war was justified. This has to do with whether the war was carried out in a way that was Constitutional.

Are you kidding me?

So what you just told me is that murder can be justified despite it not being carried out in a way that is legal. Last time I checked, taking someone's life for any reason except protecting your own is not only illegal but also immoral. Not that morality has any bearing on law, because it doesn't necessarily, but murder is called murder for a reason.

I would expect a statement like that to come from Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Obama, or anybody else who has no interest in respecting our Constitution, but certainly not from you. I'm disappointed, to say the least.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know you're right; in fact, I think you're wrong. The only way their human rights violations would constitute an act of war against the US would be if American citizens were violated in that country. Even so, a diplomatic solution should be sought before a declaration of war.

An act of war is not the only justification for war. Anyone, and any nation, can come to the aid of someone who's rights are being violated. This stems directly from the nature of human rights. A government that enslaves and murders its people is not a legitimate government, and has no sovereignty.

With all you arguments in support of life, liberty, and property, you should understand that individuals have the liberty to band together under a common interest, form a nation around their own property, and then defend their lives, liberties and properties as a nation from any other nation who might attack them. Human rights are universal, as you know, and therefore the citizens of the CSA, for example, do not need the USA's constitution for these basic human rights to apply.

None of that refutes anything I've said.

The South decided they didn't agree with the North, so they seceded Constitutionally from the Union. They set up their own nation with their own borders and their own government. The North then committed the first act of war by occupying the South at Fort Sumter, an act of war which prompted the South to besiege the fort in an effort to force the North out of their lands. The North then proceeded with an undeclared war - against their own constitution - because they were butthurt that the South actually had the balls to leave the Union as they were allowed to.

The north were justified in initiating a war against the south as the south had no expectation of sovereignty due to their policy of enslaving human beings.

The Civil War amounts to nothing more than revenge on the North's part.

More like establishment of human rights than revenge.

But it's over now, and the states are united once again under the same constitution which requires Congress to declare a war before going to work, something which we haven't done since World War 2. Never mind the moral hazard of going to war to solve somebody else's problem; every battle we've fought for the last 67 years has been unconstitutional. Illegal by our own body of law. And you know I'm right about that.

Yea, you're definitely right about that. I'm not nearly as interested in the procedural details of war as I am in the principle behind it, and the principle behind almost all conflicts that the US has been involved in justify our involvement. They don't necessitate our involvement, but they justify it.

What they do inside their national borders is not a problem for another nation to attempt to solve,

It's not a problem that another nation has to solve. But any nation can choose for whatever reason to intervene if a government destroys its own legitimacy (sovereignty) by violating the inalienable rights of its citizens.

The slaves were not American citizens at the time, which means the North was not justified in going to war to recover citizens whom had been violated.

They were human beings. That's the important fact.

I could not disagree more. While one may feel he has a right to protect the weak, or even a moral obligation to do so, no outsider has the right to go into a foreign county and use force to change the way that country works. That's the point of national sovereignty.

The point of human rights is that national sovereignty doesn't trump it. Violate the rights of your citizens and you have no legitimate government or sovereignty.

Our nation is no more worried about human rights than the countries that we would invade.

That doesn't make any difference. The legitimacy of a government is established by their actions, not their motives.

What if one day the rest of the world wakes up and starts knocking on our door asking about black sites, water boarding, assassinations, kidnappings, etc that are clear and documented human rights violations? Would they then have the right and/or responsibility to invade us and change our way of life as they see fit?

Waterboarding is not a rights violation (presuming the person was guilty of a crime worse than murder). Assassinations are also not a rights violation (presuming the person was guilty of a crime at least comparable to murder). These things need to be established, of course, but don't be so quick to assume that these acts violate the rights of others. Someone who intends to murder many innocent people has no rights.

The US does violate human rights, however... so there are real claims to US government illegitimacy. None of those claims make it any less legitimate than any other nation on earth though.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Let's keep the gloves up shall we? You know I'm right.

Seem a bit like an appeal to authority type fallacy here. How are you right again? I missed the part where you gave valid evidence and proof to why the U.S. has a right to go and police the world. Other than the fact you're an American.

I have the thought that you are quite the Henry Kissinger fan

 

[Danoff]

Seem a bit like an appeal to authority type fallacy here.

Appeal to authority doesn't generally apply to the author unless the author hiding behind some sort of credentials.... which I didn't do.

I was making the assumption that others would see the obviousness of the argument that a government loses its legitimacy as it violates the rights of its citizens.

I missed the part where you gave valid evidence and proof to why the U.S. has a right to go and police the world. Other than the fact you're an American.

What part of:

Anyone, and any nation, can come to the aid of someone who's rights are being violated.

...makes you think this has something to do with America. Furthermore, check this one:

The US does violate human rights, however... so there are real claims to US government illegitimacy. None of those claims make it any less legitimate than any other nation on earth though.

So, it looks like you were just taking lazy pot-shots rather than actually coming up with an intellectual response.

 

[YSSMAN]

The Civil War amounts to nothing more than revenge on the North's part.

It is quite a bit more complicated than that, what exactly do they teach you kids down in Ohio?

Revisionists love to attack the issue from a wide variety of perspectives simply because there were a wide variety of perspectives. You can make an argument about a violation of rights on both sides, you could argue economics on both sides, but in the end what it always comes down to (at least from me, based on what I had learned) is that it was for control of the nation. More or less, Lincoln wanted to keep the country together, regardless of slavery or state's rights, for the strength of the two halves together was much great than the two halves apart.

We could argue about the actions on Fort Sumter in much the same way that we can argue about Pearl Harbor. There are a great number of accusations that Lincoln wanted an attack on the Union in much the same way that people accuse FDR of letting the attack occur in Hawaii. The simple fact is that the South did attack a Union installation, giving them the go-ahead for war. Granted, it was an inevitability, but it made the South appear as the aggressors, it banded the North and its territories together, and we sought to take back what we believed was rightfully ours.

Personally speaking, as a Northerner, I'm quite surprised that you are attempting to justify the actions of the South. Ohio is weird, man.

 

[Danoff]

The simple fact is that the South did attack a Union installation, giving them the go-ahead for war.

Doesn't matter though. The North was justified in initiating the war.

 

[Keef]

The US does violate human rights, however... so there are real claims to US government illegitimacy. None of those claims make it any less legitimate than any other nation on earth though.

The only line worth arguing in that whole post.

So, if every government around the world is in some way illegitimate, then what the hell is the point?

We have both argued before that it is not immoral to not help another person in need. It would be a violation of one's liberty to be expected to help another person. Therefore, since a government's legitimacy stems from the people who agreed to establish said government, no nation is required to help another for any reason.

We have also established that one can help another if he chooses, but he subjects himself to the possibility of performing an immoral act in the process. Therefore, no harm can be done by a nation not helping another, but harm can be done when the nation chooses to help another.

Since our nation, for example, has no moral obligation to help another, we should step back and think about the situation. Do we want to help? Sure. Okay, then how do we go about it? Well, we could help diplomatically, seeing as that none of our citizens were harmed and therefore no act of war was committed on us and therefore we gather no right from the individuals in our nation to defend ourselves. But what if our citizens did get harmed? That may constitute an act of war against out nation. Do we want to go to war to defend our nation? Yeeeesss. How should we do that? Well, in the Constitution it says that Congress must declare the war, and by that it means that the citizens of our nation should be in support of the war since members of Congress represent the interests of the people. If that is the case, then we declare the war and we go fight it.

The Union had no moral obligation to go to war with the South. Even if they purposely wanted to fight an immoral war they didn't do it correctly because their body of law requires them to declare a war, which they did not do. Even if they had a justifiable cause to go to war such as violations against their citizens they still didn't go to war properly because their Constitution required them to declare the war. Even if they did actually have a moral obligation to go to war, they didn't do it properly because their Constitution required them to go to war.

Not only did they not have a morally justifiable cause to go to war, even if they did the war still would have been illegal by their own body of law.

My point stands - the North was wrong and the South was right. What is this now, my third or fourth time explaining clearly how the North was wrong? Ever thought about contacting Dr. Paul directly and arguing with him about it? I'd say he's more of an expert on these issues than I am.

It is quite a bit more complicated than that, what exactly do they teach you kids down in Ohio?

They sure as hell didn't teach me this in school.

...but in the end what it always comes down to (at least from me, based on what I had learned) is that it was for control of the nation. More or less, Lincoln wanted to keep the country together, regardless of slavery or state's rights, for the strength of the two halves together was much great than the two halves apart.

This supports my statement that the war was not fought to end slavery, but because the North was pissed that the South seceded (Constitutionally, I might add). You've also provided evidence to suggest that Lincoln was not a proponent of State sovereignty (a big-government establishment conservative, was he?); again, this agrees with the fact that they considered secession unconstitutional.

We could argue about the actions on Fort Sumter in much the same way that we can argue about Pearl Harbor. There are a great number of accusations that Lincoln wanted an attack on the Union in much the same way that people accuse FDR of letting the attack occur in Hawaii. The simple fact is that the South did attack a Union installation, giving them the go-ahead for war.

Why did the South attack Fort Sumter? Because Fort Sumter was within Confederate borders, something which the CSA had not authorized and didn't want. Beyond that, Major Anderson occupied the Fort. Would you not argue that unwanted Iranian occupation of US territory constitutes an act of war on their part? Of course you would, because it is. So, as I've stated many times already, the North committed the first act of war, giving the South legitimate reason to seige the Fort, which they did.

Granted, it was an inevitability, but it made the South appear as the aggressors, it banded the North and its territories together, and we sought to take back what we believed was rightfully ours.

Major Anderson's move to Sumter was unauthorized by Washington. The use of this move as propaganda to drum up support was an unintended opportunity. Stating that the South started the war was a blatant lie, and even further supports the illegitimacy of Lincoln's war.

Personally speaking, as a Northerner, I'm quite surprised that you are attempting to justify the actions of the South. Ohio is weird, man.

I don't care where anybody is from; facts are facts.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So, it looks like you were just taking lazy pot-shots rather than actually coming up with an intellectual response.

Well it is nice of you to assume, I was simply showing I disagree if you feel slighted that's too bad.

Point is the kettle calling the pot black is the problem here. America has the right to invade when they deem fit but no one else can say or do to America when they violate human rights laws. OR when we place dictators in power through CIA funded coups. So I ask and have asked why do we get to live in double standards?

The only line worth arguing in that whole post.

So, if every government around the world is in some way illegitimate, then what the hell is the point?

We have both argued before that it is not immoral to not help another person in need. It would be a violation of one's liberty to be expected to help another person. Therefore, since a government's legitimacy stems from the people who agreed to establish said government, no nation is required to help another for any reason.

We have also established that one can help another if he chooses, but he subjects himself to the possibility of performing an immoral act in the process. Therefore, no harm can be done by a nation not helping another, but harm can be done when the nation chooses to help another.

Since our nation, for example, has no moral obligation to help another, we should step back and think about the situation. Do we want to help? Sure. Okay, then how do we go about it? Well, we could help diplomatically, seeing as that none of our citizens were harmed and therefore no act of war was committed on us and therefore we gather no right from the individuals in our nation to defend ourselves. But what if our citizens did get harmed? That may constitute an act of war against out nation. Do we want to go to war to defend our nation? Yeeeesss. How should we do that? Well, in the Constitution it says that Congress must declare the war, and by that it means that the citizens of our nation should be in support of the war since members of Congress represent the interests of the people. If that is the case, then we declare the war and we go fight it.

For the most part I agree with this and what is said here is why I disagree with Danoff on the subject of what give America the right to invade when we ourselve our immoral.

 

[Danoff]

The only line worth arguing in that whole post.

So, if every government around the world is in some way illegitimate, then what the hell is the point?

....because it's not impossible for there to be a legitimate government. Because a nation that enslaves its people is not a legitimate nation. Enslaving a massive population of human beings is a tad worse than something like refusing to allow citizens to smoke a weed. I'd be shocked if a another nation declared war on the US to free some potheads.... potheads tend to be too lazy for that sort of thing anyway.

We have both argued before that it is not immoral to not help another person in need. It would be a violation of one's liberty to be expected to help another person. Therefore, since a government's legitimacy stems from the people who agreed to establish said government, no nation is required to help another for any reason.

...as I've said many times.

We have also established that one can help another if he chooses, but he subjects himself to the possibility of performing an immoral act in the process. Therefore, no harm can be done by a nation not helping another, but harm can be done when the nation chooses to help another.

...still with you.

Since our nation, for example, has no moral obligation to help another, we should step back and think about the situation. Do we want to help? Sure. Okay, then how do we go about it? Well, we could help diplomatically, seeing as that none of our citizens were harmed and therefore no act of war was committed on us and therefore we gather no right from the individuals in our nation to defend ourselves. But what if our citizens did get harmed? That may constitute an act of war against out nation. Do we want to go to war to defend our nation? Yeeeesss. How should we do that? Well, in the Constitution it says that Congress must declare the war, and by that it means that the citizens of our nation should be in support of the war since members of Congress represent the interests of the people. If that is the case, then we declare the war and we go fight it.

The Union had no moral obligation to go to war with the South. Even if they purposely wanted to fight an immoral war they didn't do it correctly because their body of law requires them to declare a war, which they did not do. Even if they had a justifiable cause to go to war such as violations against their citizens they still didn't go to war properly because their Constitution required them to declare the war. Even if they did actually have a moral obligation to go to war, they didn't do it properly because their Constitution required them to go to war.

No real beefs with that.

Not only did they not have a morally justifiable cause to go to war,

Lost you. They did have a morally justifiable cause to go to war. They didn't have an obligation to go to war. But they were totally justified in doing so.

even if they did

They did.

the war still would have been illegal by their own body of law.

I'm less concerned with the procedural details than I am with the principle. In principle a nation can declare war on another nation for enslaving its population. Whether or not they signed the right documents or made the right formal declarations is of secondary consideration (it is still a consideration though).

My point stands - the North was wrong and the South was right.

Totally 100% wrong. The South never established a legitimate government and engaged in human rights violations.

What is this now, my third or fourth time explaining clearly how the North was wrong? Ever thought about contacting Dr. Paul directly and arguing with him about it? I'd say he's more of an expert on these issues than I am.

Don't redirect, and don't appeal to authority. Deal with the issue right here on this forum.

Point is the kettle calling the pot black is the problem here. America has the right to invade when they deem fit but no one else can say or do to America when they violate human rights laws. OR when we place dictators in power through CIA funded coups. So I ask and have asked why do we get to live in double standards?

We don't. I have well documented concerns about the American government.

 

[Tornado]

They were not citizens (as if 3/5 equals 1 in the first place). They were counted as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes. They enjoyed no rights of a citizen. Article 1, section 2, paragraph 3.

Interestingly enough, they continued to enjoy no rights (or at least very few in comparison) for a hundred years after the war ended. But I digress.



Let's say I kidnapped every illegal immigrant I see and force them to work for me as slaves in my backyard. Should the federal government just stand back and say "whoa, not my problem" and leave me be?

Are you kidding me?

So what you just told me is that murder can be justified despite it not being carried out in a way that is legal.

No. What I told you is that the reasoning for the war was justified, and the fact that it wasn't ultimately done correctly and may as a result be unconstitutional doesn't make that reasoning any less justified.





Let's build on your murder example. I killed a guy. Cops know it. Cops break into my house and find evidence that proves it. I walk because the cops, though justified for their actions, didn't follow the proper procedures (ie. a warrant) to execute them. Doesn't mean whatever they had that would have gotten them a warrant ceases to exist.

Furthermore, it seems to me that, by that same logic (and correct me if I'm wrong), the only thing we'd need to do for you to be okay with invading, say, Iran, would be to formally declare war on them.






Finally:

I would expect a statement like that to come from Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Obama, or anybody else who has no interest in respecting our Constitution, but certainly not from you. I'm disappointed, to say the least.

Draw whatever conclusions you want. If "Has a different interpretation over a certain issue" means the same as "Look at this guy: He's like Obama 2.0" to you, I honestly can't say I care.

 

[Keef]

Let's say I kidnapped every illegal immigrant I see and force them to work for me as slaves in my backyard. Should the federal government just stand back and say "whoa, not my problem" and leave me be?

You're in this country, you adhere to this country's laws. The CSA was not the USA, they were the CSA, and therefore the CSA's citizens did not have to adhere to the USA's laws.

Furthermore, it seems to me that, by that same logic (and correct me if I'm wrong), the only thing we'd need to do for you to be okay with invading, say, Iran, would be to formally declare war on them.

You'll have to show me where I said I'd support a war despite not having had any acts of war committed on us. I support defending our country, not offending others. But in order to engage in any war, legitimate or even illegitimate if our government so insists, the Constitution requires a declaration of war.

Now, if our soldiers are attacked, by the right to life they have a right to defend themselves, so technically a war may actually begin before the declaration, but the declaration is what makes it legal and allows official orders to be given.

Let's build on your murder example. I killed a guy. Cops know it. Cops break into my house and find evidence that proves it. I walk because the cops, though justified for their actions, didn't follow the proper procedures (ie. a warrant) to execute them. Doesn't mean whatever they had that would have gotten them a warrant ceases to exist.

I agree with this.

As for Danoff's argument, it appears we've narrowed the disagreement down to a moral issue; whether or not the war was morally justified. Nobody seems to be arguing that it wasn't illegal, which was my original point. But the reason I'm only answering Toronado's post is because it was easier and I need some time to ponder the issue. Gotta weasel my way out of Danoff's half of the argument without making myself look bad, you know. I might be...misguided...but I haven't decided yet. It seems I may have forgotten one of my old moral positions, which means that this was just an honest accident and if not for that I would have been right the whole time.

 

[ChaosStar79]

An act of war is not the only justification for war. Anyone, and any nation, can come to the aid of someone who's rights are being violated. This stems directly from the nature of human rights. A government that enslaves and murders its people is not a legitimate government, and has no sovereignty.

So we have no sovereignty in our own nation then. Why do we have it in some other nation?

The point of human rights is that national sovereignty doesn't trump it. Violate the rights of your citizens and you have no legitimate government or sovereignty.

That doesn't make any difference. The legitimacy of a government is established by their actions, not their motives.

Waterboarding is not a rights violation ...
Assassinations are also not a rights violation........

The US does violate human rights, however... so there are real claims to US government illegitimacy. None of those claims make it any less legitimate than any other nation on earth though.

Waterboarding and assassinations are not rights violations.... I had no clue you were from the Bush camp on these issues. Of course they are, they are always rights violations. No one has the right to force some one to drown by controlling how much air or water they breathe in, nor does anyone have the right to splatter another man's brains across a field. That's ridiculous and after watching all the garbage we went through with W trying to justify it, I really hoped I wouldn't hear this line again. This is why we are considered barbaric assholes by the rest of the world, this very mindset that we can employ violence and strong-arm tactics whenever they suit our needs but woe be unto them who would dare to use our own tactics against us. This is not the way to spread whatever freedom we are supposed to be spreading.

Come on man. This is doublespeak and then some. We can't police other countries for their human rights violations, when you admit yourself that we do it too. By your own words, you seem to acknowledge that any country willing to do so, has the right to come here and intervene to correct, as they see fit, our human rights violations? I doubt we would allow anyone to do so, yet we act shocked when we 'encounter resistance' for doing so in someone else's homeland.

Seem a bit like an appeal to authority type fallacy here. How are you right again? I missed the part where you gave valid evidence and proof to why the U.S. has a right to go and police the world. Other than the fact you're an American.

I have the thought that you are quite the Henry Kissinger fan

I'm beginning to believe this as well.

 

[Biggles]

It’s very puzzling to see the “libertarian” crew arguing over this. I was under the impression that the libertarian point of view was so rational & logical that it resembled mathematics – which wouldn’t appear to leave much room for disagreement.

There is nothing wrong with the US Constitution itself – it was, at the time, a revolutionary & ground-breaking achievement. The problem I have is with the belief that it provides some kind of “mathematically” precise guide for dealing with any issue that might subsequently arise. As the history of slavery & racial discrimination in the US illustrates, a document – any document – is always going to be subject to subjective human interpretation. So, the question becomes, should the human interpretation be that of the present or that of 1787 – a time when (according to Keefe) “people thought blacks were animals”?

It’s clear that by present-day standards, Lincoln as well as the Founding Fathers were racist (not to mention sexist & classist). It’s pointless to “blame” them for this, they were men of their time with the experience, attitudes & opinions of their time. What I find hard to understand is why anyone would think it’s a good idea to interpret the US Constitution in an “originalist” light. While the present-day United States may be far from perfect, it’s certainly more respectful of basic human rights than it was at any time in the 18th or 19th centuries.

Keefe, you have an unfortunate tendency to be fixated on the details of libertarian dogma while ignoring the basic human rights issues that should form the core of the philosophy. The legality of Southern secession is of little significance to anyone outside of the US - it corresponds to no "universal law", while the issue of slavery most definitely does.

 

[Keef]

It’s very puzzling to see the “libertarian” crew arguing over this. I was under the impression that the libertarian point of view was so rational & logical that it resembled mathematics – which wouldn’t appear to leave much room for disagreement.

In practice it seems we argue just as much as anybody else. Take Omnis for example - he's an advocate of Anarcho-capitalism, which basically takes the mostly libertarian idea of the Constitution - a government limited to the role of protecting the freedom and rights of its citizens - and sprinkles a little anarchism on it, eschewing any government for free-market solutions, from toilet paper to court system. While I agree that a profit-motivated police department would be less intrusive and more effective than a government police department (for fear of pissing off their customers and making them switch to a different police "plan"), I'm not as sure that it would work out smoothly. First and foremost, it requires people to be thoughtful and responsible, which we all know is often too much to ask.

There is nothing wrong with the US Constitution itself – it was, at the time, a revolutionary & ground-breaking achievement. The problem I have is with the belief that it provides some kind of “mathematically” precise guide for dealing with any issue that might subsequently arise.

The idea of the Constitution was only to limit the power of the Federal government, and to precisely define the few powers that they actually do have (or are supposed to have, as it the case today). The Tenth Amendment clarifies this, saying that if the Constitution doesn't give the Feds a certain power (whatever power that might be), and if it doesn't deny the States a certain power (again, whatever power you might think up), then the power you asked about must be left to the States and the People to figure out how to handle. It probably could have worked better if people didn't sit around and think "Aw, well, that's just a piece of paper. Can't be that important!" It's kind of like me sitting here thinking about doing my homework - aw well, it's just one homework assignment. But if you brush off enough of them, a little while down the road you realize that the whole situation has gone to pot, you have few options to solve it, and all of those options are really going to suck.

As the history of slavery & racial discrimination in the US illustrates, a document – any document – is always going to be subject to subjective human interpretation. So, the question becomes, should the human interpretation be that of the present or that of 1787 – a time when (according to Keefe) “people thought blacks were animals”?

Interpretation is affected by knowledge. At the time, not only did they not think blacks were people, but they didn't know they were people - they spoke a funny language, they wore blades of grass to hide their goodies, they put face paint all over themselves, they crapped out by a tree somewhere. Somewhere along the line we realized that they could learn and understand and be a productive part of society just like anybody else. The wording of the Constitution didn't even need the 13th Amendment. The 13th is basically just a clarification abolishing slavery, even though it's already outlawed by the whole "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" thing.

I agree that the interpretation will change over time - the question is, will the new interpretation be consistent with the parts that are already fully understood? In the case of slavery, yes, it was. In the case of the Patriot Act...no, it isn't.

It’s clear that by present-day standards, Lincoln as well as the Founding Fathers were racist (not to mention sexist & classist). It’s pointless to “blame” them for this, they were men of their time with the experience, attitudes & opinions of their time. What I find hard to understand is why anyone would think it’s a good idea to interpret the US Constitution in an “originalist” light. While the present-day United States may be far from perfect, it’s certainly more respectful of basic human rights than it was at any time in the 18th or 19th centuries.

I understand what you mean here. If we interpreted the Constitution with period-correct knowledge and opinions, certain things would work out poorly, like slavery. I believe what the "originalist" thing means is that we read and understand the text as the Founders intended it to be understood. The idea is to use their definitions for the terminology used, because word definitions often change over time.

For example, the powers of Congress, Article 1 section 8: "To regulate commerce...among the several States..."

This article is quite long, but the section linked deals with the intended definition of "regulate". The author of that article references the definition of Samuel Johnson, an 18th century British author.

Samuel Johnson defines "to regulate" as "1. To adjust by rule or method. . . . 2. To direct." In other words, the term "to regulate" means "to make regular." The power to regulate is, in essence, the power to say, "if you want to do something, here is how you must do it."

Basically, "to regulate" means to set a standard...so interstate trade involves the same rules and procedures no matter which states are trading. But this does not imply the power to ban or outlaw or fine or punish, which are powers regularly exercised by the Feds today. The originally intended role was to regulate as in set a standard, not to regulate as in to police.

Another example from Section 8, "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States."

I've yet to do any research on that clause, but I understand this clause to apply to the Federal government - the United States as written in the Constitution refers to the Federal government. In referring to the Feds, "welfare" basically means "wellbeing". The clause should mean that Congress is allowed to collect uniform taxes throughout the United States that will be used to fund the operation of the United States. The clause should NOT mean to collect taxes which will then be given as free money to all the poor people of the United States.

Keefe, you have an unfortunate tendency to be fixated on the details of libertarian dogma while ignoring the basic human rights issues that should form the core of the philosophy. The legality of Southern secession is of little significance to anyone outside of the US - it corresponds to no "universal law", while the issue of slavery most definitely does.

I've yet to come up with my excuse for a possible lapse in judgement so I can't comment on that one yet.

 

[hawkeye122]

This election... what a shambles. And its not as if my family's votes will count, since California is a de-facto Democrat state as far as the General election goes.
None of the GOP candidates seem electable, and I don't think that we can stand another 4 years of Obama. I'll entertain arguments for "It was Bush's fault", but quite frankly, alot of this is Obama's doing. Sure, it was bad when he got here, but he hasnt done much to help, or so it seems. It also isn't helped by the fact that my state, on its own, is pretty much penniless. Not Obama's fault, but still a negative for the Democrat-led congress in my state.

Quite frankly, if I could legally vote, I don't think I would because I support none of the candidates. The 2-Party system needs to be shot down. Fast.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There is nothing wrong with the US Constitution itself – it was, at the time, a revolutionary & ground-breaking achievement. The problem I have is with the belief that it provides some kind of “mathematically” precise guide for dealing with any issue that might subsequently arise. As the history of slavery & racial discrimination in the US illustrates, a document – any document – is always going to be subject to subjective human interpretation. So, the question becomes, should the human interpretation be that of the present or that of 1787 – a time when (according to Keefe) “people thought blacks were animals”?

Doesn't that go back about 10 to 15 pages ago? It seems we've come back to ground already broken (slightly broken). This goes back to the question you posed earlier and had answered. Is the constitution a living document or not?

It’s clear that by present-day standards, Lincoln as well as the Founding Fathers were racist (not to mention sexist & classist). It’s pointless to “blame” them for this, they were men of their time with the experience, attitudes & opinions of their time. What I find hard to understand is why anyone would think it’s a good idea to interpret the US Constitution in an “originalist” light. While the present-day United States may be far from perfect, it’s certainly more respectful of basic human rights than it was at any time in the 18th or 19th centuries.

Not all of them were, also this is the weird part about some of those who contributed to the constitution. Though they did own slaves and had racist view of blacks to that of whites, what they wrote seemed to ignore that. And people like George Mason who supported abolition of slavery, seemed to contradict what they support constitution wise to that of what they did. To me it seems to be a case of "do as I say not as I do" and they probably would have been fine with African Americans having equal rights but only after they were dead and gone. This can be further supported when you look at the life of Jefferson, who was a massive slave owner but over the course of his life changed view or at least when talking about the subject his view changed.

Or better yet this.

...how can you call the Founding Fathers racist when many of them were against slavery? But you can have a racist ideology and also be against slavery. Jefferson, for example, developed a concept of difference, radical difference, which led him to think that blacks and whites couldn't live together in freedom. He wanted to get rid of slavery eventually, but the only way that he thought that could be done is if the races totally separated. In other words, he was the first advocate of colonization of blacks outside of the United States. And that's because he believed that the prejudices were so strong, the differences so great - he almost was against slavery because of his racist views. It almost got to that point. It's unfortunate these two races cohabit the same place.

It's true that racism is a product of slavery to a considerable degree, but it also took on a life of its own, and it could survive beyond the abolition of slavery and could exist in the minds of people who, for a variety of reasons, were against slavery. -George M. Fredrickson

Basically, one could interpret it in its original form because that bias against other races didn't penetrate the fabric of the constitution. It is seen when you read it, and the word slave/slaves/slavery doesn't come up till 1865. This shows us that though it may have been a topic on their minds they may have not wanted to tackle it or didn't know how to. Reading other pieces from the founding fathers shows us that their ideal of human freedom was one without slavery in the world. These men weren't dumb and knew that it would be quite the contradiction to fight for freedom from England while using the idea of America as the land of human freedom.

 

[Famine]

Keefe

Why do you keep adding a letter to his name?

 

[Dennisch]

Why do you keep adding a letter to his name?

He trying to say : Keef, eh!

He is Canadian.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

We can't police other countries for their human rights violations

I'm missing the point how this is relevant to this thread, but find the discussion very interesting.

* Anyone can defend Human Rights where ever they want, I believe that we (not only the US) better do so if we want to be able to exercise our rights in the future. I do believe it is the goal of the UN.
* Legislation has very little to do with rights, it is not needed to have rights
* You have no obligation to defend rights of others, but it is the correct moral choice.
* Now in defending the rights you should not take actions that violate the rights of innocent people. (that is very tricky)

Sorry that I can not link this to the viewpoints of the presidential candidates.
But people seem to forget in some discussions that the past of the candidates can be an indicator for the future, but the real objective of voting is to get the person in the seat that will do the best job.

 

[Biggles]

Why do you keep adding a letter to his name?

That is weird. I don't know why - perhaps because I know a number of O'Keefes & one Keefe IRL.

LMS: Doesn't that go back about 10 to 15 pages ago? It seems we've come back to ground already broken (slightly broken). This goes back to the question you posed earlier and had answered. Is the constitution a living document or not?

Yes, I'm afraid all this ground has already been broken many times. However, we keep coming back to it because it is a central question. Although the US Constitution was a ground-breaking (!) document at the time it was written, how effective was it in practice? If you were African American, obviously not very! How different is the history of human rights in Canada - which has only had a written constitution since the 1980's - compared to the USA? There are some differences, but overall I would argue the differences are not that significant. Bear in mind that Canada was the place slaves fled to, to avoid recapture, because in the northern US states they were not legally out of the reach of their "owners".

LMS: Not all of them were, also this is the weird part about some of those who contributed to the constitution. Though they did own slaves and had racist view of blacks to that of whites, what they wrote seemed to ignore that. And people like George Mason who supported abolition of slavery, seemed to contradict what they support constitution wise to that of what they did. To me it seems to be a case of "do as I say not as I do" and they probably would have been fine with African Americans having equal rights but only after they were dead and gone. This can be further supported when you look at the life of Jefferson, who was a massive slave owner but over the course of his life changed view or at least when talking about the subject his view changed.

Yes, I totally agree & have said this in past posts: I don't believe that most white Americans, including the Founding Fathers, believed Africans were "animals". They also understood slavery was morally wrong. They were not stupid - they understood slavery was fundamentally at odds with the meaning of the US Constitution. At the same time, I think most Americans believed the "African race" to be "inferior" to whites - so they were definitely racist in that sense.

Keef: In practice it seems we argue just as much as anybody else. Take Omnis for example - he's an advocate of Anarcho-capitalism, which basically takes the mostly libertarian idea of the Constitution - a government limited to the role of protecting the freedom and rights of its citizens - and sprinkles a little anarchism on it, eschewing any government for free-market solutions, from toilet paper to court system.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with disagreement. What IS wrong is to think there is anything so precisely logical about libertarian philosophy that it rises to the level of “mathematics” & therefore cannot be argued about or disagreed with. That is delusional.

I’ll give you my “libertarian” take on the causes of the Civil War.

By 1860 almost half of the population of the southern states were slaves: 3,950,000 out of a total population of 8,000,000. Most southerners did not own any slaves & only 1% of owned more than 100 slaves. These were the plantation owners – they were the equivalent of the landed aristocracy in feudal Europe – owning huge areas of land & “owning” the humans required to work that land profitably.

This 1% held a control over the political institutions totally out of proportion to their numbers. They controlled the agenda at the state level & through the “3/5ths rule” & the undemocratic institution of the US senate they also exercised disproportionate power at the federal level. During the Buchanan presidency, the slave states were also considered to control the Supreme Court, with 5 of the judges under their sphere of influence.

However, industrialization in the north & a continual influx of new immigrants threatened the power base of the slave oligarchs. In order to ensure the continuation of their economic system in the face of the growing political & economic power of the northern states, the slave oligarchs understood they had to ensure that as many as possible of the new territories being incorporated into the US would become “slave states”. Incidentally, they also sought to extend their influence over the Caribbean. By this time few slaves were being imported from Africans, instead “breeding” of slaves for resale had become a major industry in itself, particularly in South Carolina.

If you look at the decade preceding the outbreak of the civil war there were a whole series of political, legal (& some literal) skirmishes between the slave oligarchs & the “Free Soilers” & northern interests – determined to resist an increased sphere of influence for the slave states. As always, the best way to rally the support of the masses was to introduce “nationalism” into the equation. So the southern masses were indoctrinated to believe they were fighting for their “way of life” against the Yankee aggressor. It’s hard to see what the average, poor white subsistence farmer stood to gain by going to war – he didn’t own slaves anyway. What he was doing was fighting & dying to maintain the wealth & privilege of the slave oligarchs, the same way millions of men signed up to die in the trenches of the First World War to protect the interests of the European elites.

As it turned out, the Civil War was a catastrophe for the south - a catastrophe it took generations to recover from. Dressing it up as an issue of “states rights” is just smoke & mirrors.

 

[GTsail]

Since this discussion got re-introduced by the discussion over Ron Paul's thoughts on secession:

..snip...
The slaves were not American citizens at the time, which means the North was not justified in going to war to recover citizens whom had been violated.... It is a known fact that Abraham Lincoln did not go to war to end slavery; he went to war because the South seceded.... The war against the South, which had established national borders and government (but had yet to be recognized by the North for obvious reasons), was undeclared, and therefore unconstitutional by the North's own constitution, our Constitution.... The Civil War was no different than Vietnam or Korea - the USA stepping into another nation's business and straightening it out to fit with our own interests.

Keef - Are you saying that if it was "legal" under the US Constitution to secede from the United States in 1860/61, and the Southern States wanted to secede in order to continue slavery, Ron Paul (if he was the President) would have allowed this course of action?

Would President Ron Paul have allowed the Southern States to exploit a "legal" loophole in the US Constitution in order to perpetuate slavery?

Would he have ignored the immorality of the continued enslavement of African Americans?

In your mind, the legality of the situation is more important than the morality?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

So we have no sovereignty in our own nation then. Why do we have it in some other nation?

I'm actually not a big fan of sovereignty as a concept. There is one controlling law over all nations, which all nations must adhere to (human rights). They have no national sovereignty on that issue - they have no leeway. To the extent that they violate human rights, they violate the legitimacy of their government. Anyone can defend anyone else from rights violations. It's not that we somehow have sovereignty in some other nation, anyone, a group, an individual, has the right to defend anyone else from rights violations. Right now somewhere in North Korea someone is being falsely imprisoned. The US has every right to free that person. But moreover, you have a right to free that person. I have a right to free that person, Al Qaeda has a right to free that person, the AARP could send an attack squad of 80 year olds to free that person. It doesn't matter who does it.

A government that does not protect the rights of its citizens is open to challenge from a government that will. If some other nation on earth wanted to liberate the oppressed pot smokers of America, or the prostitutes, or anyone else who's rights we trample, they could go to war with us over that issue. But they don't for many reasons - one is that they don't care. If they're guilty of more rights violations in their own nation, they don't have a claim to govern us either. But that situation hasn't applied to the US since the civil war. We've never gone to war with the purpose of annexing a territory since then (and the only time beforehand was the revolutionary war... unless you want to count territory disputes with Spain/Mexico).

Waterboarding and assassinations are not rights violations.... I had no clue you were from the Bush camp on these issues.

I'm not. You can't take any argument that Bush used on those issues and apply it to my position because even though the Bush administration and I might have ended up in the same position, we got there very differently.

Of course they are, they are always rights violations. No one has the right to force some one to drown by controlling how much air or water they breathe in, nor does anyone have the right to splatter another man's brains across a field. That's ridiculous and after watching all the garbage we went through with W trying to justify it, I really hoped I wouldn't hear this line again. This is why we are considered barbaric assholes by the rest of the world, this very mindset that we can employ violence and strong-arm tactics whenever they suit our needs but woe be unto them who would dare to use our own tactics against us.

It has everything to do with that person's actions. You could say "no one has a right to kill anyone else". And you'd be right unless that person was guilty of killing an innocent person themselves - at which point they have absolved themselves of a right to life. There are no rights that are immune to forfeit by your own actions. Kill enough people, torture enough people, enslave enough people, and you open yourself up to any and all actions.

Now, a nation can choose not to engage in those behaviors for a variety of reasons. They can say "it's our policy not to engage in torture etc.", but that's a prerogative, not a requisite from human rights.

It should be clear from this that others cannot simply say "you tortured one of ours so we'll torture one of yours" and be on solid moral grounds. If the person who was tortured was guilty of genocide, that doesn't give anyone the freedom to violate the rights of an innocent person (regardless of nationality).

Come on man. This is doublespeak and then some. We can't police other countries for their human rights violations, when you admit yourself that we do it too.

Well, we do violate some rights, but the issue in question here is whether we had a right to invade a "nation" that was guilty of enslaving an entire population. We most certainly do not "do it too".

The rights violations that the US is guilty of are things like banning certain substances, banning certain kinds of free trade, banning certain kinds of contracts (for example: minimum wage is a rights violation), occasionally we violate equal protection (via income taxes). Another nation could use these as a justification to go to war with the US - but they won't because generally they do it too (and worse). Also it's just not something people get nearly as upset about as mass genocide and slavery.

I doubt we would allow anyone to do so, yet we act shocked when we 'encounter resistance' for doing so in someone else's homeland.

I don't think we were shocked when we encountered resistance in Iraq. I think we expected a different kind of resistance, but we weren't shocked simply because it was resistance. An Iraqi fighting to maintain Saddam's regime is in the wrong - Saddam's regime was guilty of massive human rights violations. An Iraqi fighting to establish religious-based Islamic law is also in the wrong - as that also will be guilty of massive human rights violations (by definition re: treatment of women).

It’s very puzzling to see the “libertarian” crew arguing over this. I was under the impression that the libertarian point of view was so rational & logical that it resembled mathematics – which wouldn’t appear to leave much room for disagreement.

I can't count the number of times I have posted that disagreement means nothing when it comes to objectivity. People disagree on everything - including whether the world is flat. That has no bearing on whether there is an objective answer to whether the world is flat.

I seriously have no idea how many times I've made that statement (and it has never been refuted... because it's right). You yourself must have read it at least a dozen times.

 

[Famine]

Biggles - Mathematics is logical and objective. Ever get a red "X" on a math problem?

 

[dautolover]

Oh well I guess that settles it then. It appears I have been beaten. Welcome to the Dapper Club - hope you shined your shoes so you may slither out from under any argument you face.

Are you familiar with the principle of stare decisis? It's actually the pillar of the common law system that the US adopted since its inception. What this means is that the law establishes its meaning by having judges determine what it says.

The US has one of (if not )the shortest Constitution in the world. That's because it's less interested in facts, and more interested in principles. Principles are meaningless without their application, without facts... and that's where the courts come in, to interpret the law based on the facts presented to them.

The text is not the endpoint, but rather the startpoint of inquiry... you can't just point to the text and say "ah ha! See, I'm right," because that clause can mean so many things when the facts change, or even when juxtaposed with other clauses.

So what you're saying is that currently the United States has the right to invade any country around the world for any human rights violations they might be conducting.

The only reason I can tell that you say the Confederate government was "illegitimate" is because it wasn't recognized by the Union or any other country. This is typical, seeing as people don't want to recognize the Confederates as an actual country, despite the fact that they seceded legally and set up a legitimate government. At the time of the Civil War, the Confederate States of America was a nation of its own, whether the Union wanted to recognize that fact or not, and therefore the only way their war could have been legitimate is if Congress had declared it, which they did not.

So again, the South was right. As Omnis said, the Union was simply butthurt by the fact that secession is allowed by the Constitution. I've explained earlier how the idea of secession being Constitutional threatens the existence of the Federal government, and they therefore refuse to accept the notion of secession.

The US has no right to intervene in the sovereignty of other nations. It's precisely because the South was NOT its own country (although it likes to believe that it was) that the US was capable of taking down the South. Again, they don't call it the CSA vs. US war... they call it the Civil War, for good reason--it was a war with itself, to bring back the political and economic hole left by the South's noncooperation.

Yes.

(I'd phrase it slightly differently in ways that aren't really important right now)

No, the US has no right. Usually when this happens, the US ends up violating more rights than the ones they sought to protect in the first place.

But it's over now, and the states are united once again under the same constitution which requires Congress to declare a war before going to work, something which we haven't done since World War 2. Never mind the moral hazard of going to war to solve somebody else's problem; every battle we've fought for the last 67 years has been unconstitutional. Illegal by our own body of law. And you know I'm right about that.

You are. Most wars have been entered under the banner of morality.

Each slave was 3/5ths of a citizen according to that same Constitution at the time.

Nope... they were not citizens until the Fourteenth Amendment.

....because it's not impossible for there to be a legitimate government. Because a nation that enslaves its people is not a legitimate nation. Enslaving a massive population of human beings is a tad worse than something like refusing to allow citizens to smoke a weed. I'd be shocked if a another nation declared war on the US to free some potheads.... potheads tend to be too lazy for that sort of thing anyway.
...
I'm less concerned with the procedural details than I am with the principle. In principle a nation can declare war on another nation for enslaving its population. Whether or not they signed the right documents or made the right formal declarations is of secondary consideration (it is still a consideration though).

Legitimacy exists outside the realm of human rights. That would make the pre Civil-War US illegitimate by these standards. And I think you should be concerned with procedural details... as a state, that wields power, procedure is a means to keep the state's power in check. If the US wanted to kill Californians because, in principle, it believed that they "corrupt" the "good" minds of other Americans, I'm sure you won't be cheering this decision.

Any state action deriving from a self-proclaimed morality is suspect.

Legitimacy exists when consent is present. My argument is that there was no consent involved when the South left the US, because the US had to have a say in whether it would allow the South to leave or not.

I will take a middle ground, however, by saying that there's something fishy in citing consent when you simultaneously silence the voices of the black population. The South wished to cite democracy as the pillar for their "nation." Yet, slavery in a true democracy is oxymoronic... they cannot co-exist.

 

[YSSMAN]

As it turned out, the Civil War was a catastrophe for the south - a catastrophe it took generations to recover from. Dressing it up as an issue of “states rights” is just smoke & mirrors.

To some extent, an argument can be made that much of the South never fully recovered. Political and social isolation of the area is partially to blame, but as a Northerner I really can't speak for how things are there.

 

[dautolover]

Nobody seems to be arguing that it wasn't illegal

Wrong... Cause I'm arguing that it was perfectly legal...

 

[Danoff]

Legitimacy exists outside the realm of human rights. That would make the pre Civil-War US illegitimate by these standards.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

And I think you should be concerned with procedural details... as a state, that wields power, procedure is a means to keep the state's power in check. If the US wanted to kill Californians because, in principle, it believed that they "corrupt" the "good" minds of other Americans, I'm sure you won't be cheering this decision.

...because it would violate human rights and invalidate any legitimacy in US government.

Legitimacy exists when consent is present.

Consent is never present. Legitimacy exists when the government adheres to objective standards.

My argument is that there was no consent involved when the South left the US, because the US had to have a say in whether it would allow the South to leave or not.

This is an extremely flimsy argument. There is no such thing as consent of the governed to begin with (ask anyone in prison). Whether the North gave the south permission to leave is irrelevant based on the constitution (and principle). The best argument you have here is one based on who gets public lands/funds/military etc.

I will take a middle ground, however, by saying that there's something fishy in citing consent when you simultaneously silence the voices of the black population. The South wished to cite democracy as the pillar for their "nation." Yet, slavery in a true democracy is oxymoronic... they cannot co-exist.

But not for reasons of consent.

Democratic slavery is an oxymoron because democracy is built on the right to vote (a right denied to slaves). It's especially bad in the US flavor which also recognizes a right to equal protection.