Comment: Reedr -- I am NOT a Licoln appologist

I can point out Lincoln's actions that went "against" the notion of a free-market -- easily.

I made it clear the last time let me make it clearer.

If you are going to "critique" a former president as a Non-FreeMarket President then you must critique the time-period and all the Founder's -- so "we" in the Liberty Movement can discern what constitutes free-market activity and what does not.

Do you agree with that or do you believe that it's okay to give passes on a piece meal basis?

If DiLorenzo never attacked Lincoln and Hamilton (as does Thomas Woods) as the greatest men of evil I would not be counter-critiquing their OBVIOUS holes and lack of critique over the whole time period.

One man cannot be a Hero of the Nation and one man cannot be the Devil of a Nation.

To believe in such a philosophy is to ignore "HOW" we (as consumers) contribue to the problem - We Are 2/3'rds of the Evil-They's Revenue Stream and Abdication our Power to Politicians which is the "other" 1/3rd.

That's why I favor Mises' value-free approach -- rigid ethics forces you to chose heroes and devils.

Mises and Rothbard have aspects of their philosophy that is mutually exclusive.