Comment: We were talking about "civil" war -- were we not?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I´ll again object (see in situ)

We were talking about "civil" war -- were we not?

Sure -- there is a "just war" between two opposing national armies and since there are no "war lands" to go hold skirmishes on one side will have to be invaded -or- the war might take place on contested lands (where "no one" claims it).

Wars are justificatory -- yes yes (I know).

But the justification happens long long before the physical confrontation -- there is an abdication of consumer-sovereignty (by the voting masses) -- in modern times.

Under a King with a large army and cofers that need to be filled -- an ever growin number of "noblemen" to whom one has filial want to aide (to grow in wealth - to secure loyalty) -- owing to these non-freemarket circumstances wars are "justificatory"

However -- if we want a "free-society" we are going to have to go further back in the decision tree -- bring it in close to the chest.

Name one (just one) "just war" and I will show you a swath of abdicated authority and circumvention of consumer-will that lead to it.

Again that's only if I want to discuss "just war" (on a world stage) -- Discussing on a national (civil war) stage is a whole other matter; for "me" there is no "just war" in such a situation.

The North would not have fought the South had the South never once took on Foreign Debt (to prop up an inefficient economic model - slavery). England and France wanted to push slavery westward and the South (most of them - regardless public addresses) knew and concented to this. England and France had standing armies in Mexico and Canada waiting to enter to the side of the South. Or do you think England and France (the banksters therein) wanted "liberty" and "freemarkets?"

The North was not without blemishes (for sure); but they were "more right" weren't they -- Or do you believe that "secession" to continue slavery (rape, torture, selling off of family members, feeding un-wanted babies to crocodiles, and sodomy) was "just war?"

According to Ron Paul "free-trade" better'd relations with Vietnam far more than War did -- could you see a situation where war could have bettered that situation?

Again -- name just one war that was "just"

One might argue the Revolutionary War -- but that was not fought for the liberty of the common man -- it was fought for the liberty of the wealthy here who were paying the brunt of the taxes. We swapped out one type of Euro-Slave-Owning Ruler for Another and like the non-individualists we were (probably always were) we call them "Fathers" (Founding Father's). Not saying that in the long-run fighting that war was not "just" -- but that seems like the last one that could possible fit that discription.

I'm just looking for a truly "just war" -- point one out.