Video of Bureaucrats Removing Signs and Flag from Statue and Commentary

June 11, 2009 by Ian
Filed under: Issues, National, Personal Freedom, Response, Update, Video

Thanks to Lauren Canario:

In response to my discourse on the so called “Civil War”, AnnAmazedReader wrote this in the comments:

Debates regarding the circumstances under which the secession of a town, city, county, state or region from a larger “entity” are potentially interesting, although I would imagine that any enemy of the FSP would welcome the project’s members waxing verbose about the North’s engagement with the South in our Civil War being essentially evil. Arguing on behalf of a region’s supposedly inalienable right to treat human beings as chattel (while making the childish analogy between said chattel and American citizens in our time) on the basis of the sanctity of property rights is probably not a winner, folks. Unless you are actually 1) trying to undermine the movement, or 2) fundamentally non-serious and more inclined towards attention-getting stunts and rhetoric. Sorry.

Well-meaning Americans like Ann have been seriously misinformed. It wasn’t necessary to fight wars to abolish slavery in other parts of the world. There’s no excuse for violence. Hundreds of thousands died, but it didn’t have to be that way. Slavery was wrong, but it would have ended peacefully had Lincoln not been a power-hungry maniac. Of course, it’s the presidency, and he was a politican, so no one should really be surprised.

I thought that a couple of comments from other readers were great responses to Ann’s twisted words, and I wanted to highlight them.

First, from Anarchojesse:

I think you’re misinterpreting the defense of the Confederacy here; most times, libertarians will take a Spoonerite position on that period of time, which is to say, we’re pro-abolition but just as much pro-secession. History has some pretty interesting things to tell us beyond the text book regurgitation of nationalistic ideals being defended by a man who suspended the writ of habeus corpus, instituted a draft, and didn’t actually take the time to free the slaves still in the Union.

Then, Zeus:

Many people erroneously think the Civil War was fought over one issue: slavery. This is just modern fantasy taught by government indoctrination centers (public schools).

The War Between the States began because the South demanded States’ rights and weren’t getting them. The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell its cotton and other raw
materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries.

The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable.

Eventually, these problems boiled over because they weren’t being addressed and southern states began announcing their intentions to sever ties with the Union. After all, what’s the point in staying if the promises aren’t being kept? Abe Lincoln decided that wasn’t going to happen on his watch. He was going to force those states to remain in the Union even if he had to kill thousands of his own countrymen to do it. So he starting raising an army… which pissed off even more southern states and caused them to announce secession. Conflict ensued and people died.

Slavery wasn’t a real factor until the Battle of Antietam in September of 1862 (2 years into the war) when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.

Lincoln’s decision that the only way to leave the Union was in a body bag resulted in the deaths of 620,000 Americans from both sides of the conflict and increased the power of the Federal government. Rather than actually freeing the slaves, it simply helped to make slavery more equal for all Americans.

No one is defending nor excusing slavery. Far from it. We want it to end completely for everyone across the board. We are the new Abolitionists and our goal is to end slavery in all its forms.

When the Men From Washington not only do nothing to help you make ends meet but actively work against you and then reach their hands into your wallet for a “fair share”, that is still slavery. When the Men From Washington can tell you what you may or may not do with your body as you see fit or they will kill you, that is still slavery. It’s just less visible and more insidious these days.

Zeus

Here's an example of the formula thus far.

This doesn't seem right to me. There must be a different way of handling it than basing it on the value of the property lost vs the value of the aggressor's life, right? As far as I know, there is no value lost from trespass other than your right to control what is or isn't done with your property. You can remove that person with violence if necessary but deadly force?

And if the proposed method for handling those situations *is* true, what criteria determines the value of the aggressor's life? I'm not sure that's even possible. I know it was done in the age of weregeld but that doesn't mean it was appropriate.
http://gibson.mp/ Richard

A thief has implicitly determined that no agreement exists regarding the ownership of certain goods, and thus defaulted to raw action as the arbiter. You, believing in minimal response to infringement, may therefore use as much force to recover your property as the thief is willing to use to keep it. The amount of force you are willing to use will depend on the property's subjective value.

It would benefit you to have far more potential force at your disposal than the thief is willing to employ. Third-party arbitration leverages a majority sense of fairness to provide precisely this condition… but is unfortunately only available after the fact. The thief has already initiated force in pursuit of your property, and will be (temporarily) victorious in the conflict over it unless you mount a superior defense. This would still be true if you tracked em down, but at that point arbitration is probably a much more attractive option than direct force—for both of you.

I'm not sure that the above can be accurately cast into the language of "rights". My best effort would be to state that thieves have the same rights as everyone else, except to the extent that their actions defend theft.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

I don't think rights have anything to do with the value of what has been damaged. You have a right to defend your property — you don't have a right to use more force than is necessary.

If someone is threatening to steal your sandwich, it is nearly 100% certain that there are alternate, less violent ways to prevent it than shooting them. That's what determines that you have no right to shoot them — not the value of the sandwich.

If someone has already stolen your sandwich, the goal switches from prevention to restitution. In that case, you then have the right to use the minimum force necessary to obtain fair restitution.

In both cases, minimum force necessary is the key — not the value of the good.

The value of the good only comes in when determining whether it is moral to exercise a right. So, although I have a right to use whatever minimum force is necessary to prevent someone from stealing from me, I may decide that that force is too severe, and that I would prefer to lose the property, and so do not exercise that right.

The difference is, if a person acts outside of their rights by using more force than is necessary, they should be required to provide restitution. If a person exercises their rights in an irresponsible manner, by using the minimum necessary force in a situation when forgiveness would be more appropriate, ostracism is an appropriate response, but restitution should not be forcefully required — they have acted within their rights.
Lpviper

So, the gun to the landscaper's head is an excessive use of defensive force, and the lawn owner will suffer damage to his reputation for doing such a thing instead of arbitrating his dispute.

While the gun action is not intrinsically immoral, it would definitely be considered to be in poor taste and would raise questions about one's fitness to act within society.

That cover it?
Lpviper

Next time he'll cut his own damn grass
Zeus

To simplify, what both of you seem to be saying is this:

1. If you are aggressed against in the form of theft/fraud, vandalism and trespass (murder, rape and assault being givens), any amount of force — including deadly — is on the table.

If so, this confirms my theory that until the aggression is resolved, the aggressor temporarily forfeits all valid, moral claims (rights) to not be aggressed against by you. Quid pro quo.

2. The aggressed must decide how important the aggression is to them and choose to either forgive the aggressor or to resolve the aggression with violence.

3. If the aggressed chooses violence, they must determine for themselves how much is required in order to correct the situation and use the minimal amount necessary to achieve resolution.

4. Choosing overkill, however, could have very negative consequences for the aggressed.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Regarding 1, I think it makes more sense to first look at it from the perspective of the victim. So, the victim has the right to use the minimal necessary force in defense of himself. Logically, then, the aggressor loses those rights which that minimal defense will violate. He maintains all others.

I certainly don't think he loses all rights. In most cases, defense does not require deadly force. Even if it did, there are obviously things the "victim" could do which would be not within his rights, such as killing the attacker slowly.

Regarding 4, I would say overkill, meaning use of more violence than reasonably necessary for defense, is aggressive violence, and a violation of the perpetrators rights, for which restitution will be required.

The use of minimal necessary violence when simply allowing the attack would be more appropriate, however, is not a violation of rights, nor will it require restitution, but may result in ostracism.
Zeus

…the victim has the right to use the minimal necessary force in defense of himself [and his other property]. Logically, then, the aggressor [temporarily] loses those rights which that minimal defense will violate. He maintains all others.

That's about as succinct and clear as it gets. Thanks Paul.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

It's succinct once you cut it out of the rest of my rambling, and it's correct once you added the extra words . Thanks for the discussion, it's helped me think a little more carefully about some of these ideas, and flesh them out.