You simply cannot have the power to do one without the other.

Really? That’s a strong, unsubstantiated metaphysical claim; it follows, then, that since the Visigoths sacked Rome, they could build her as well.

Sorry; institutionally enforced “sensitivity” is the greatest modern engenderer of ressentiment.

I abhor the idea of slavery, but I find it hard to believe that anyone with the ability to read and comprehend would think that the actions of Lincoln were right. It seems clear, after a bit of research, that secession was the right and proper stance for a state that could not reconcile its differences.

But then, he with the biggest gun gets to make the rules, right?

Second, if it hadn’t been for things like President Eisenhower sending the Army to force states in the Deep South to allow black children to go to school, then Jim Crow would still be alive today.

If it hadn’t been for Edison, the light bulb would never have been invented, right?

Let’s ask Mr. Bernstein about his position on Israel’s claim to Palestine. Perhaps Mr. Bernstein could involve his racist friend Daniel Pipes in the conversation.

Daniel Pipes is as big a racist as any Stormfront nutjob yet I don’t see anyone calling for Bernstein’s job based on his association with Pipes.

“My argument isn’t “Union good, South bad.”” -Mark

I didn’t say that you are were relying on the Union-good/South-bad dicotomy, but that you are relying on the Union-good/slavery-bad dicotomy. You have mischaracterized my position because you cannot openly admit the truth of yours.

“Moreover, the fact that limitation on federal action against slavery was what allowed slavery to flourish demonstrates quite well why federalism is not an inherently libertarian concept.” -Mark

Federalism did not cause slavery. Again, you rely on your straw-man argument. The Federalism which allowed slavery for a few is the Federalism which allowed freedom for millions who would be oppressed otherwise. You would chain thousands to free one, provided that the one was bound with the thousands.

If you will re-read my quote from Jefferson, you will see why Federalism, despite its inefficiency in dealing with slavery, is a libertarian concept. Without Federalism, there is no effective check on the growth of central power. Which is, incedently, exactly the type of government that the colonists rebeled against during the Revolutionary War. In fact, the political document which provided the philosophical ammuntion for both our Revolutionary War and the Secession of the South was the Declaration of Independence. Are you philosophically opposed to the Revolutionary War?

Without using the straw-man of slavery, which we both acknowledge was propped up by the weak Federal Government of the US as well as the weak Federal Government of the CSA, I would be delighted to hear your idea of how centralized political control is a more libertarian concept than Federalism.

Moreover, the fact that limitation on federal action against slavery was what allowed slavery to flourish demonstrates quite well why federalism is not an inherently libertarian concept. More importantly, it demonstrates why the states are as, if not more, likely to be purveyors of racial malfeasance than the federal government.

Also, I might add that you ignored the provision in the CSA constitution that mandated slavery in new territories. This is a far cry from the way in which slavery had been handled to that point by the federal government, in which the slaveholding status of new states was either left up to the new states or decided on a case-by-case basis by Congress. Not to say this was an ideal arrangement, but it was far preferable to the automatic slave state provision in the CSA constitution. By the way, the provisions I cited demonstrate pretty clearly the priority the CSA placed on slavery- high, very, very high.

I’m not a libertarian… but Paul has my attention…

Franks and Bernstein can not read a simple four paragraph Paul statement and reach a clear understanding of those words.

You guys are tilting at windmills… this can’t help Paul’s run…

Focus on getting more MSM exposure. Ignore these little guys… they are NOTHING!

Good Luck,

Randy

You might, I don’t know. You might be enamored with an unobtainable ideal, and right now, that supercedes your normal tribal behavior.

If you are Jewish, you might re-think this “we are simply individuals” idea, as Muslims from Africa and Asia take over Europe, bringing their low average IQ, their high rate of ethnocentrism, and their open hostility to Jews.

Many things bring out the predatory nature of our species, all are present in the West and increasing as our multicultural “experiment” advances.

Poverty: and as whites are displaced largely by the Third World in the West we will be remade into Third World societies.

Resource competition: bringing together races that have significantly different average IQs creates permanant disparities.

Religious diversity: even in monoracial societies, religious diversity creates permanent tension and often violent conflict.

Bringing people together who have been historical enemies: when will blacks stop talking about slavery, or the Arabs about the Crusades?

The West is going to become increasingly toxic to Jews, thanks to their own elite and their multicultural “experiment”.

Again, this just shows how you and I differ in our world views.

I look at people who discriminate as just that, people. It doesn’t matter to me if they’re white, brown, Jewish, Christian, or Buddhist — because whether they are doing something right or wrong doesn’t depend on what group they belong to.

Name one Jew or nonwhite in America that does not discriminate based upon race when in their ethnic or individual interests?

It would be like finding a needle in a haystack.

Even white Genitles are expected to discriminate, as long as it serves only the interests of Jews and nonwhites, and never their own ethnic interests.

White geniltes who discrimiante in favor of their own race become cartoon charactors: supremacists, neo-Nazis, racists….

Article 4:Section 2;Clause 3: US Constitution
“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

Besides specific clauses of the Constitution dealing with slavery, the structure of the entire document ensured against emancipation by the new federal government. Because the Constitution created a government of limited powers, Congress lacked the power to interfere in the domestic institutions of the states.

I am not defending slavery, I am defending the limitation of Federal authority. Instead of calling upon straw-man arguments that amount to Union-good – slavery-bad, as if that were the dicotomy that resides at the crux of the issue, I think that the legal principle of jurisdiction is paramount. The Union overstepped its jurisdictional authority when it invaded the South, and the Federal government has not stopped its forced integration since. In this regard, it is no different than the former Soviet Union, which not only banned the secession of States but also of individuals. Remember, the purpose of the Berlin wall was not to keep out the West, but to imprison the unfortunate victims of Communist totalitarianism.

“Resolved – that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their general government. But that by compact under the style and title of a constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self government. And that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. Now to this compact each state exceeded as a state and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself the other party, that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion and not the constitution the measure of its powers. But that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” -Thomas Jefferson