Comment: Reedr: Fair enough

(See in situ)


Reedr: Fair enough

No I am not mis-read or mis-understood regarding the philosophy of Panarchy, I worded it that way so we could be clear on whom the moral dilemma stood more resolute: The North or the South.

Clearly Slavery is an act of War -- It required the backing of the army, the navy, and of police -- and worse, it gave birth to the rankest of militias who hunted, raped, kidnapped, and tortured under the protection of law.

Emerson wrote:“slavery is no scholar, no improver; it does not love the whistle of the railroad; it does not love the newspaper, the mail-bag, a college, a book or a preacher who has the absurd whim of saying what he thinks; it does not increase the white population; it does not improve the soil; everything goes to decay.”

The North was not opperating as a free-market and neither was the South; however, in every measure of the development of Human Capital the North outstripped the South.

Less than 1/2 of 1% of the people in New England (as of 1860) were iliterate, whereas nearly 20% were so in most Southern States.

Mises wrote: "The much abused shopkeepers have abolished slavery and serfdom, made woman the companion of man with equal rights, proclaimed equality before the law and freedom of thought and opinion, declared war on war, abolished torture, and mitigated the cruelty of punishment. What cultural force can boast of similar achievements?"

Central National Authority grew out of the decayed morass of Central State Authority.

State-Rights can be just as evil as Federal Gov't.

State is not local enough to guarantee a free-market; it must be the Town or City where the law rests -- Only the consumer can bring it down to this level.