Thursday, March 13, 2014

Libertarians Dispute the Root Causes of the Civil War

I just recently became aware of Jon Stewart's comedic commentary upon the remarks of right-libertarian pundit Andrew Napalitano's remarks on the U.S. Civil War, and Pres. Abraham Lincoln's role in it. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-24-2014/denunciation-proclamation I , especially from my perspective as a left-libertarian commentator, take a more nuanced view of the impetus of the war between the states. First off, I primarily agree with the remarks made in this article. http://philmagness.com/?p=589, namely this part, "As noted, these are views that enlist fundamentally ideological considerations of the sort that tends to exert a distortive effect upon the processes of historical inquiry. Finding neither particularly adequate, and both prone to one-dimensional and hyperbolic editorializing at the expense of historical complexity, I’ll offer the following two concurrent ground rules for any libertarian wishing to enter a Civil War discussion:
  1. One needn’t be for the Union to be against slavery.
  2. One needn’t be for the Confederacy to object to the North’s prosecution of the war.
As a further general observation, let it be noted that when libertarians say something stupid about the Civil War it usually stems from accepting only one of these ground rules and neglecting the other." For example the noted abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, a figure widely claimed by the right, and left libertarians alike, was supportive of the supposed right of the southern states to secede. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44 And Abraham Lincoln himself proclaimed this, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” -http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm So why so I believe the various southern states voted to secede from the Union? Bluntly put, because their leaders were a bunch of stupid sensationalists. Look, similarly to today, the conservatives of the time had been making out the Republican presidential candidates, first Fremont, and then Lincoln, out to be radical extremists. Look at these two historic political cartoons, and see for yourself. On Fremont http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003656588/ , and on Lincoln  http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003674590/. Both were portrayed as favoring socialism, just as our current president, Barack Obama is made out to, by conservative rightists of today. So in my view, the south's struggle for separation from the federal government was an over reaction to what they thought was going to be an extreme social change, in which not only would their supposedly be the abolition of chattel slavery, but of wage slavery as well, And any other explanation, whether it pertain to slavery, or tariffs, falls short of standards of authentic historical validity. I understand how people will want to try to ennoble the conflict as either being about the freedom of slaves, from a unionist standpoint, or the rights of states, from a confederate bias, but really the war was in reality simply a tragic mistake.  P.S.In the interests of full personal disclosure, in case any of you were wondering, I am the descendent of Civil War veterans, whom all fought on the federal side. Most notably this man http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=20459968. So I might be expected to hold a pro-northern bias, at least subconsciously, as due to the south's decision in favor of rebellion, I was at risk of never having been born, if my ancestors hadn't survived it. So my sentiments might be seen as being emotional, and not merely rational.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Proposed Bill Intended to Define, and Condone Corporal Punishment of Children Dies in Commitee

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/19/4834744/kansas-spanking-bill-will-not.html As John Stewart mentioned on his show http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/jon-stewart-kansas-corporal-punishment_n_4830881.html , Kansas legislator, Gail Finney, proposed a bill to legally indicate what corporal punishment, as contrasted with supposed physical abuse, is about. Now some might wonder what's wrong with that. Well I assert that, in all fairness, no one of any age, sex, or position should ever be subject to acts of aggression. I mean strict fundamentalist Muslims might insist that they would never abuse their wives, merely correct them with corporal punishment, as a last resort. And they likewise have preconditions as to how one is to properly discipline wives, and children. http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=158765 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChnpaMK1oLQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIwdb3lFEUE.Incidentaly, when I told my mother of this, that according to Islamic principles, a man is not to beat his wife as he would a donkey http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/3683071/Lessons_in_how_to_beat_your_wife/ , and that the best of men are those whom behave best to their wives http://muslim-responses.com/Womens_Honarable_Position_/Womens_Honarable_Position_ , her response to me was /"oh thanks"/. So if a woman is not willing that even her husband have such authority over her, to inflict pain upon her, even in a most mild fashion, why should children, who are all the more so vulnerable, be treated any different, if not worse? If we are to permit children to be hurt in this manner, then in order to be consistent, we must also allow husbands the perogative to likewise strike his wife. I feel that a persons supposed freedom of religion, such as with the tradition of corporal punishment of delinquent subjects in a patriarch's family, must be countered by the recognized individual right to freedom from fear, in a modern, free, civil society. And anyway, even with Christianity, the scriptures counter balance the prescription of flogging http://www.openbible.info/topics/spanking_children, and even stoning http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV, of children , are counteracted by these verses http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/bible_verses.html , http://www.holybible.com/resources/living_learning/fall_1999/provoke_not_children.htm. And God requires not only that we do justly, but also that we love mercy, and walk humbly with God. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Micah+6:8&version=KJV And one is not humble if one exalts oneself over another, and not loving mercy if one is brutal towards one's family. And not only is this the opinion of myself, but also that of learned rabbis http://www.unhinderedliving.com/discipline.html , http://www.reformjudaism.org/practice/ask-rabbi/does-judaism-advise-spanking-disobedient-child , http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/hammerman_ethics/sparing_rod. Plus, in addition, a number of christian figures have also come out to discourage the spanking of children http://www.christianpost.com/news/pcusa-passes-resolution-against-spanking-children-77776/ , http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=146, http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=unitedmethodist And lastly, from a historical standpoint, through out history children have had possession of deadly weapons. http://www.lordsandladies.org/knighthood-training.htm , http://scriptamus.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/child-soldiers-are-unfortunately-nothing-new/. So the "rod of correction" was counterbalanced by the dagger of protection. A father could beat his son's butt, but the son could react by then spilling his father's guts.So the before referenced verse about not provoking children to wrath was not merely a nice piece of advice, but rather a fair warning. Now of days though, typically children only train with styrofoam versions of weapons, such as with Nerf products. So there is no longer a level ground between the capabilities of violence between adults and minors. And, being that my blog is written from the standpoint of philosophical anarchism, I contend that if a fully free society does not decide to intervene in cases of men striking their dependents, it should also not do anything against children whom fight back against such severe heavy handed oppression. And, in addition to seemingly authorizing the use of force against sons, the Book of Proverbs also authorizes it against anyone more generally, regardless of age. http://biblehub.com/parallel/proverbs/19-29.htm So all in all, I state that the only time one should ever use violence is in response to belligerence. And even then, only in proportionate amount of force. This is in accordance with both the nonaggression principle http://www.5stepstoanarchy.com/what-is-the-non-aggression-principle/ , and just war criteria http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/ .