[Eran]

To play devil's advocate, one can envision a situation in which the foreign threat is of total annihilation, whereas the domestic response is limited-duration slavery of a limited subset of the population.

Here is an extreme scenario to demonstrate the point:
Country A is threatened with genocide by its aggressive neighbour B.

The threat can be averted by the efforts of a reclusive scientist citizen of A. That scientist has the know-how required to complete the construction of a defensive system that would repel B's threat.

The scientist, for his own reasons, declines very generous offers of payment for his (very limited duration) services.

By "conscripting" the scientist, the people of country A can avert total annihilation at the cost of forcing one person to spend a few hours conveying his knowledge to others.

To be clear, I think this is an entirely unrealistic scenario, falling outside the entire historic range of conscriptions. Yet it highlights a situation in which, arguably, the "emergency exception" to the ordinary duty to respect property rights might apply with respect to a "conscription" action.

[Nunt]

I guess the question is: "Should anyone be allowed to use another human as a means to achieve his own goals?". In my opinion this is never the case. Not even if your existence is at stake would you be allowed to rightfully take possession of another human against his will. I would agree that in emergency situations you would be allowed to take control over someone's property to save your life even if you don't have the permission. Looking at the cabin in the cold woods, I would say it is allowed to break into the cabin because it may be presumed that the absent cabin owner would have no objections. However, if the cabin owner is present and forbids you to enter, then you have no right to forcefully enter the cabin.

In the case with the brilliant defence scientist, the government has no right to enslave the scientist for its survival. Never should one man be made to be another man's means.

[Eran]

I respect your attitude, but I also think it is very difficult for others to accept intuitively. If saving my daughter's life requires theft or even (minor) assault, it is very difficult to argue that I ought to stand by and watch her die.

Asking people to behave that way is unrealistic as well. People will do much for an ideology they believe in, but at some point survival instincts will override the niceties of society. Don't you think? To appeal to authority, even such otherwise-uncompromising luminaries as Walter Block accept the principle (provided, as I stated clearly, that violating another person's property rights under an emergency exception still requires payment of restitution once the emergency is over).

[Rich]

Many people have noted libertarian or even anarchist undertones in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Yes the Hobbits have little respect for property rights. In fact the world is saved from Sauron's darknees by the Hobbit's thieving proclivities, when Bilbo steals the ring from Gollum. In the book it is implied that Isidur was the right ful owner, but of course Isildur could only lcaim this because he was the innhetior of a vast undemmcratic super state.

People noted, for example, lack of government in the Hobbit's Shire. To me, however, the main message comes from an analogy between The Ring and the reigns of government.

The Ring represents tremendous power, power that is obviously being used malevolently by evil people, but power that tends to corrupt even will-intentioned individuals.

Government is like the Ring.

You should really acquaint yourself with the incredible savagery and violence of pre state societies. The states of Sumer arose to protect private property which didn't exist in significant form in hunter gather societies. Trade no doubt existed very early in human existence, but it was only cities that created the first real market economies with their government imposed weights and measures, security, law and order and rules of contract. The private property, democratic market state has proved highly effective at creating value, producing, economic growth and advancing technology, but the huge wealth differentials that the market economy spawns bring huge power differentials which inevitably corrupts the necessary institutions of the government and the society in general.

Libertarians are geniuses. They have realised that if you define everything in terms of property rights than you can express everything in terms of property rights. Communism and Libertarianism offer visions of a perfectly just and beautiful world, why let those visions be corrupted by reality.

[Nunt]

I can agree to violating property rights of physical objects in emergencies. I cannot agree to violating other persons to save your own person. As of course, this emergency rethoric works both ways. By violating another person because you are in an emergency, you cause someone else to be in an emergency as well. Thus your emergency to assault someone is cancelled out by another person's emergency to not be assaulted. Who is to say which emergency takes priority?

[Eran]

You should really acquaint yourself with the incredible savagery and violence of pre state societies.

Indeed. Human history is characterised by a fairly-consistent reduction in savagery and violence. Political leaders throughout history opportunistically used situations of genuine need to justify self-serving crimes.

Thus it is entirely plausible that ancient leaders excused taxation or conscription as necessary means for communal protection. But why go so far in history? Hobbes is reputed for using just such security concerns to justify absolute monarchy. We now know he was wrong. Hopefully, time will come when people realise that any justification of government through appeal to security is similarly wrong.

Communism and Libertarianism offer visions of a perfectly just and beautiful world, why let those visions be corrupted by reality.

Arguments of the same structure could have been (and in fact were) raised against idealists calling for the abolition of slavery, expansion of the vote, equal rights to women, etc.

I am happy to explain why reality fully supports libertarian principles. Recent history of government malfeasance would be a good start...

I can agree to violating property rights of physical objects in emergencies. I cannot agree to violating other persons to save your own person.

Interesting. Libertarians normally work hard to erase the distinction made (partially) by liberals between body and external property...

By violating another person because you are in an emergency, you cause someone else to be in an emergency as well.

Not necessarily. I could, for example, save my daughter's life (she would be delighted to see how often I put her life in jeopardy for the sake of an argument) by merely shoving another person out of the way, thereby "violating" that other person, though clearly not to an extent that will cause them an emergency.

There can be situations in which one person's survival requires another person's demise. Under such circumstances, In my opinion, rules of ethics cease to apply.

Who is to say which emergency takes priority?

An objective arbitrator, agreed by both sides

[Spouter]

I am experiencing difficulty crafting my normative arguments in favor of conscription. I thought I had it all wrapped up, but once again I started an interminable post that I can could not bring to a close. I think you and I can both agree that conscription is sometimes necessary, Eran, although Nunt disagrees. But I want to advance beyond the normative phase, and it is difficult to defend conscription on these grounds.

Besides, comments are being generated in this thread that I find interesting.

Hopefully, time will come when people realise that any justification of government through appeal to security is similarly wrong.

That is the only real justification for it. Everything else is just gravy. The main purpose of government is the protection of life and property. That is why governments were instituted, in historical reality, and that is their only valid function, in normative abstraction. It all boils down to self-defense. Hobbes was interested in defending monarchies, but his arguments can be extended to the defense of any valid government. I define a valid (or just) government as one that effectively serves its primary mission: the protection of life and property.

[Eran]

That is the only real justification for it.

Interesting. A consistent application of this principle would make you a minarchist. If nothing else, it seems inconsistent with your support for Title II which involves government violating rather than protecting people's property rights.

I reject the historic narrative that is implied by the statement "That is why governments were instituted", but that is not that interesting.

A more interesting direction into which we can go from here is exploring whether governments are indeed necessary for "protection of life and property". Clearly, the vast majority of people do and in the past have believed that. In fact, even most self-declared libertarians, and some of the best-known past libertarians (Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek (if you can call him libertarian), Milton Friedman (the same)) had the same attitude.

A growing number of radical libertarians (myself and Nunt included) believe otherwise - at least given certain preconditions in terms of basic political values in society.

[Spouter]

In the meantime, why not work on the definitions a little bit?

Obligation can be understood as either a moral obligation or a legal obligation. The former is simply an act one ought to do (or refrain from doing). For example, I am obligated to help a friend in trouble. Legal obligation, on the other hand, is an act I can forcibly be compelled to doing. More common, a legal negative obligation is an act I may be forcibly stopped from doing. We can see that property (and easement) rights immediately translate to negative obligations on others, namely the obligation not to violate those rights.

...I am obligated to help a friend in trouble.

That is the idea that motivates the formation of an army. An individual human is quite weak and vulnerable, but if he organizes his individual efforts into a collective effort, coordinated with others, then the power of the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts. A dozen neighbors can band together and defend themselves from brigands, with greater effectiveness than any one could muster by themselves. That simple act--a few neighbors organizing a collective defense--is the ultimate origin of all government. It all evolved from that simple idea.

Do you admit that there is some kind of normative obligation to "help a friend"? If so, then the defense of conscription is not all that far fetched.

I don't mind labeling myself a "minarchist," for the sake of argument. I agree with the definition, to a certain degree. But, in cases of public emergency, then all of these "minarchist" principles will fly right out the window. The slavery issue caused a civil war. Despite that, the issue was not resolved. Well into the 20th century, the Southern American Negro was forced to act like a slave. He did not have the same rights as a white citizen, the same freedom to protect his life and property, the same right to participate in government, nor the same ability to freely purchase goods and services. Do we just ignore this problem, hope it goes away? Like the authors of the constitution? Like the federalists? They failed to resolve the problem of slavery, and that caused the Civil War. Do we really want to leave this problem for future generations? Why not take care of it now--force the racist proprietors to freely sell their goods. A violation of strict principles of normative justice? Perhaps. But still necessary.

[Eran]

That simple act--a few neighbors organizing a collective defense--is the ultimate origin of all government.

NO! You just described the origin of social collaboration, not the origin of government.

When neighbours organize collectively, there is no need for government. Government comes in when, for whatever reason, neighbours choose NOT to organize collectively, and those with power desire to force them.

Do you admit that there is some kind of normative obligation to "help a friend"? If so, then the defense of conscription is not all that far fetched.

In the previous statement and this one you are glossing over the distinction, correctly made before, between moral and legal obligations. Moral obligations, by their nature, are subjective. Legal obligations are objective. There may be any number of reasons why I might choose not to join my neighbours. Maybe I don't share their goals. Maybe I don't trust them. Perhaps I don't share their view of priorities or probability of success. Such factors legitimately impact my moral obligation, and I am the only person in a position to judge them.

Legal obligations are different - they can be enforced through third parties. That makes them much more open to abuse, and thus makes it critical that we are very very careful before committing to them.

But, in cases of public emergency, then all of these "minarchist" principles will fly right out the window.

Not for minarchy. In case of public emergency (specifically one involving security threats), a minarchy is within its power scope to conscript and tax to support an army. Only consistent anarchists (like me) refuse to acknowledge such powers.

The slavery issue caused a civil war. Despite that, the issue was not resolved. Well into the 20th century, the Southern American Negro was forced to act like a slave. He did not have the same rights as a white citizen, the same freedom to protect his life and property, the same right to participate in government, nor the same ability to freely purchase goods and services.

I understand and broadly agree with your sentiment, though I will dispute your detailed assertions. For one thing, slavery was only an indirect influence on the civil war. The major issue was the right of several states to secede from the union. Lincoln famously said that if he could save the union while preserving slavery, he would.

Second, blacks were not "forced to act like a slave". They were free to (and many of them did) leave the South for somewhat more tolerant societies of the North.

Do we just ignore this problem, hope it goes away? Like the authors of the constitution? Like the federalists? They failed to resolve the problem of slavery, and that caused the Civil War. Do we really want to leave this problem for future generations? Why not take care of it now--force the racist proprietors to freely sell their goods. A violation of strict principles of normative justice? Perhaps. But still necessary.

Note what you have done here. You made an implicit assumption that the only way to solve the problem of racism (residual slavery, as you characterise it) is through government enforcement. I share with you the sense of urgent need to relieve blacks from the burden of discrimination. Your argument, however, would only be complete if you could demonstrate that such relief required imposition of anti-discrimination on private proprietors by government.

The US Civil Rights Act, in addition to its famous Title II, also contained other "Titles".
I - barring unequal application of voter registration requirements
III - prohibiting government discrimination
IV - encouraged desegregation of public schools
VI - prevented discrimination by government agencies

We never tried applying all those legitimate measures first, before asserting that private discrimination remains an issue.



By this point in the discussion, my arguments against Title II have been limited to the theoretical normative problem of government violating the property rights of proprietors. It is worth mentioning that, as always, property rights violations carry with them practical problems too.

It is important to note the distinction between irrational bias-based discrimination, and rational discrimination. The latter stems from the difficulty, in certain situations, of ascertaining important information about individuals, relative to the ease of reaching conclusions regarding the group to which they belong. In the 19th century, Irish were known as violent drunks because many of them were indeed violent drunks. A sensible recruiter who needs to quickly put together a group of 100 unskilled labourers to work on the railroad would be rational to exclude Irish.

In addition, Title II has created a dependent government bureaucracy (strictly, Title V expanded the Civil Rights Commission powers). Scope-creep is a common phenomenon. From overt discrimination typified by "no blacks allowed" signs, the Commission as well as countless "community activists" and self-appointed or aspiring "leaders" of the black community (think Jessie Jackson) gradually expanded their attention to "hidden" discrimination, often relying on nothing but statistical differences to support their claims.

That forced companies to engage in counter-productive, defensive reverse discrimination to avoid the mere appearance of discrimination.

[Spouter]

For one thing, slavery was only an indirect influence on the civil war.

It is true that Lincoln's goal was to prevent the secession of the southern states, not to free the slaves. The exact quote is as follows.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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.

The goals of the Confederacy were not primarily to defend the practice of slavery, either. The primary goal was the defense of their own territories. If they had been successful, it is true that slavery would have been preserved, but the Confederates were not fighting for that reason. The way they looked at it, this was all about self-defense. If I had been a southerner at this time, with the same basic attitudes about slavery and the Negroes as I have today, I probably still would have fought with the Confederacy. Not because I love slavery, but because I love the land of my forefathers, and I would hate to see it trampled under the boots of Union soldiers. It is said that Lee himself opposed slavery. But his personal opinions were immaterial, because this war, as he saw it, was about the defense of his homeland. Not about slavery.

I am aware of all these facts. I also know the broad outlines of the Civil War's economic roots. The southern states wanted to trade more freely and on their own terms with other nations, such as Britain. The manufactured goods of Britain were in competition with those of the northern cities, but the north used their numerical edge in the legislature to enforce tariffs and other obstructions on the importation of British goods. Of course, they were trying to force the south to buy their own manufactured goods. This was bound to add fuel to the fire.

But despite all of this, it is the height of absurdity to assert that "slavery was only an indirect influence on the civil war." Slavery was the fundamental cause of the war. You have everything upside down.

The major issue was the right of several states to secede from the union.

Why were they trying to secede? What was the constant irritant that continually increased the tension over the decades preceding the final explosion, in the 1860's? Why didn't the south have a bigger industrial base, why were they so reliant on manufactured goods from the north? Could it be the fact that the southern economy had a slave basis, and the northern economy was based on free labor?

Read Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention. Some of the southern delegates admitted that they would personally approve of sterner measures against slavery, but their constituents had delegated them to preserve slavery, and they could not sign anything opposed to the clear will of those they were charged to represent. Read the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers were well aware that this issue could cause a civil war at some point down the road. But, the old empires were still lurking around (Britain, France, Spain), and they could certainly be expected to exploit any opportunity to break up or weaken the proposed American Federation. This was not the time to fight this war. It was better to compromise, for the time being. Read de Tocqueville. In the 1830's, he said that intelligent Americans were perfectly conscious of the fact that southern slavery was going to cause a civil war, a decade or two down the road. But, no one could think of a pragmatic measure to avert this catastrophe.

What are you getting at here? Why are you trying to distort the historical record?

[Rich]

When neighbours organize collectively, there is no need for government. Government comes in when, for whatever reason, neighbours choose NOT to organize collectively, and those with power desire to force them.

When neighbours organise collectively that is government. You seem to want to define government as something that does things you think are wrong. communities have used force against both their own members and against outsiders from the beginning of human history. In fact our ape ancestors used force before humans existed. Force is used against children form a young age. The problem is that the modern state is so good at ensuring security, so good at ensuring property rights and so good at resolving conflict that people start to imagine that its is humans natural state. It is only under the protection of the modern state that people can start to fetishise the principle of non initiation of force. People living in societies before the modern liberal democratic state rarely gave a fuck about such distinctions.

[Eran]

What are you getting at here? Why are you trying to distort the historical record?

We are in agreement with respect to the broad outlines of the causes of the war. You correctly quoted my statement that slavery was an indirect cause of the war. Your narrative (with which I agree) supports my point. In what way do you feel I am distorting the historical record?

Perhaps it would have been better if I stated that slavery was a major indirect cause of the war, together with the North's preferred tariff policy. But since the war was started by Lincoln expressly to save the union (rather than to end slavery), I think the only fair reading of historic events is to say that slavery was an indirect cause. Slavery was the major (though not exclusive) issue that caused the South to secede, and that secession, in turn, caused the war. Ergo, slavery was an indirect cause of the war.

When neighbours organise collectively that is government. You seem to want to define government as something that does things you think are wrong.

My definition of government is not really controversial. Government comprises the people and institutions running the state, itself the organisation effectively claiming the monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a given territory. Or something to that effect.

As to the first point, while neighbours can certainly organise with the intent or consequence of initiating violence against innocents, and such organisation could, over time, evolve into government, my point was that such organisation need not be characterised by unjustified violence against innocents. Unlike governments (which, by their very definition, always do so), peaceful neighbourhood organisations could be entirely peaceful and legitimate.

In my mind, government is always doing wrong, but it isn't necessarily the only wrong-doer in a given society. The reason I single government for criticism is that in modern societies, government is the only wrong-doing organisation whose actions are broadly legitimised.

communities have used force against both their own members and against outsiders from the beginning of human history. In fact our ape ancestors used force before humans existed. Force is used against children form a young age. The problem is that the modern state is so good at ensuring security, so good at ensuring property rights and so good at resolving conflict that people start to imagine that its is humans natural state. It is only under the protection of the modern state that people can start to fetishise the principle of non initiation of force. People living in societies before the modern liberal democratic state rarely gave a fuck about such distinctions.

It is true that criminal violence (violence used aggressively rather than defensively) has been part of human (and pre-human) societies since time immemorial. It is also true that the overall level of violence in modern societies is lower than that experienced in earlier periods.

I can even sympathise with the claim that modern states have been an essential step in humanity's moral progression. But the fact that modern societies are better than historic ones doesn't mean (either to me or to others who take very different political views) that they are perfect. I am offering a critic of modern societies, centred on the nature and role of democratic governments. I think we are doing better than we used to, but that we can still do a lot better.

[Spouter]

In what way do you feel I am distorting the historical record?

Okay. I believe that the following assertion is a distortion of historical reality (my emphasis).

But since the war was started by Lincoln expressly to save the union (rather than to end slavery), I think the only fair reading of historic events is to say that slavery was an indirect cause.

Lincoln did not start the civil war. It was the south who fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. They started the conflict. I learned this in grade school.

[Spouter]

Perhaps it would have been better if I stated that slavery was a major indirect cause of the war, together with the North's preferred tariff policy.

This is highly misleading. I really don't understand why you want to minimize the role of slavery in causing the Civil War.

Let's discuss the subject of causation for a moment. The word has many different meanings. If I drop an object from my hand, then is it gravity that causes the object to fall, or is it my action of dropping it? I find that Schopenhauer offers a useful distinction here: on the one hand, we have that which directly causes another event, on the other hand, we have the conditions that make that event possible in the first place.

For example, say that person X spills a flammable liquid, and then Y discards a cigarette, igniting a destructive fire. In terms of brute mechanical causation, Y started the fire. But X created the conditions that made that fire possible. However, if Y was smoking in a legal area, if he had no reasonable expectation to fear the presence of a fire hazard, and if X negligently created this hazard and failed to warn anyone, then surely X is to blame for the fire, not Y. On the level of legal or normative liability, it is a completely different story.

So let's put it this way. You can say that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand caused WWI. But that tells you nothing. To understand this war, you have to understand the conditions that made it possible. Economic conditions certainly contributed to causing the Civil War. But, if you want to understand the Civil War, slavery is by far the most important factor to consider.

Why are you pressing this ridiculous point? An indirect cause? I guess, technically, person X, who spilled the accelerant, is the indirect cause of the resulting fire, in my example above. I can imagine some sleazy defense attorney arguing along these lines, trying to shift the blame to the other guy. Why are you using the same sleazy debating tactics? Are you trying to absolve the Confederacy of blame, in some ethical or normative sense? This truly confuses me.

Now, let's discuss our definitions again.

My definition of government is not really controversial.

I find it controversial.

Government comprises the people and institutions running the state, itself the organisation effectively claiming the monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a given territory.

This is so confused. There are so many different forms of state. There are large empires, covering giant territories in which many different languages are spoken, like the ancient Romans. Small city-states, like Athens. Territorial nation-states (where one language predominantly is spoken), like France. These last only really began to come into their own in the 17th century, as I understand it. Government is also a widely varied phenomenon. The Iroquois Confederacy can be said to be a form of government, but can we call it a state? These things are much more complex than your reductive definitions suggest.

You claim that government contains an inherent element of coercion. I can agree with that. So do all societies, whether they have the formal signs of government, or not. In fact, societies without government are often the most violently coercive. Look at Somalia. It is like something from Mad Max. Warriors of the wasteland--the perfect libertarian utopia.

The primordial function of governments is military, I think. As they say in the Constitution, to "provide for the common defense." Government was invented to provide for the stability and security of property.

[Eran]

I think the discussion over the origins of the Civil War is distracting.

The reason I refer to slavery as an indirect cause is to distinguish the historic narrative we both agree on (Southern states ceded because of concerns relating to slavery and tariffs, Lincoln engaged in war to keep the union) vs. the one often naively cited (Lincoln went to war to free the slaves).

Since we agree on the details, I see no point wasting time on generalisations. If you do want to pursue it further, I'd be happy to. I think the South's attack on Fort Sumner would be justified in the context of its assertion of independence from the North. If that assertion is accepted, Fort Sumner represented foreign military presence in the South's territory.

It all boils down to whether the Southern cession was legitimate or not. If it was (which is my view), the war was started by the North's invasion of the South's territory. If it wasn't, the Northern forces were merely reasserting the sovereignty of the legitimate government of the union.

You claim that government contains an inherent element of coercion. I can agree with that. So do all societies, whether they have the formal signs of government, or not.

I agree history furnishes us with many variations in terms of the political structure of human societies. Many of them do not closely match modern governments or states. I am sorry if I introduced the term "coercion". In the context of our carefully-defined list of terms, "coercion" is relatively vague.

Instead, the normative standard for legitimate use of force is the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). Violate the NAP and you are an illegitimate aggressor (by libertarian standards). Use of force which doesn't violate NAP is defensive and permitted.

Government (in the modern sense, but typically in historic sense as well) enforces, by definition, monopoly over use of force in its territory. Governments also typically finance their operations using taxes, though that virtually-universal characteristic is arguably not essential for the definition of government (some Randian minarchists suggest the possibility of a voluntarily-funded government). But even an enforcement of use-of-force monopoly is itself violating the NAP. That is why I insist that all governments, by definition, are aggressive and illegitimate.

The same doesn't hold for societies in general. It is possible to envision a society in which NAP is not violated except by people broadly recognised as (and consequently treated as) criminals. Such society may or may not have existed historically. We can still strive for it.

While governments always violate NAP, NAP-violation doesn't only take place by governments. Common criminals are often guilty of it too, as are non-government organisations (terrorist groups, militias, etc.). Removing government in itself will not convert a society into a libertarian one (just as removing a dictator in itself doesn't convert a state into a democracy).

Government was invented to provide for the stability and security of property.

We can debate government's historic roots, but they are not too relevant. The relevant question is whether government is essential for the provision of stability and security of property. If it is, perhaps it is the least of all evils, and we just have to accept it. If it isn't (as would be my claim), the question of historic roots is moot.

Now then we can get to the root question - is government (1) a good, (2) a necessary evil, or (3) an unnecessary evil.

[Spouter]

Now then we can get to the root question - is government (1) a good, (2) a necessary evil, or (3) an unnecessary evil.

Number two, in my opinion, primarily. At least, that is how I see government in its origins: a necessary limitation of individual liberties, in order to provide for the security of the entire community and its property. In order to protect the property of everybody, the rights of certain individuals must sometimes be violated. For example, defensive works could help repel the aggression of bandits and brigands. In order to construct these, taxes must be levied, and perhaps workers will be have to be conscripted for this building project. Perhaps you would like to flood some fields on one side of your village, in order to deny brigands and other aggressors this line of approach. Even if these fields are owned by someone, it may be necessary to appropriate his land. Perhaps the owner can be compensated, but once again, that will require taxation.

All of these are coercive measures, but the community will probably submit to the them, if they face an even worse threat from banditry and other outside forces. The loss of freedom under government is the lesser of two evils here.

But then, these coercive negative acts can lead to positive results. Perhaps if the farmers of my hypothetical community are able to protect more of their crops, then they can run an actual surplus. Perhaps they can bring these surplus crops to a market somewhere, which will enhance the material wealth of the community. This is "good." So government is both a necessary evil and a cause of positive good. The element of coercion will always be present on some level, however, and the good effects that result are of a secondary and indirect nature. I think it is important to always remind oneself of the intrinsically coercive nature of all forms of government, no matter how this factor is mitigated or concealed.

...all governments, by definition, are aggressive and illegitimate... The same doesn't hold for societies in general. It is possible to envision a society in which NAP is not violated except by people broadly recognised as (and consequently treated as) criminals. Such society may or may not have existed historically. We can still strive for it.

I have taken the liberty of underlining the statement above, because I believe it reveals a major flaw in your reasoning. You should discard the skepticism here ("may or may not"), and just say it outright: No society has ever existed that was completely free of "aggression," as you have defined it. That is my firm opinion, in any case. It is an abstraction. Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with seeking the concrete realization of an abstract ideal. I agree 100% that we should strive for a society governed only by the individual citizens themselves, free of external coercion, each man responsibly administering his own affairs, in accordance with his own interests, with intelligent and informed respect for the rights of other people.

If an ideal is worth anything at all, it is worth fighting for. In other words, it must be imposed by force. I am not saying that you have to literally hold a gun to someone's head and order them to adhere to your ideals. The ways that you can pressure and coerce someone into obeying your will are infinitely varied. In my ideal society, people will organize their own behavior according to the internal dictates of moral suasion, versus the crude instrument of external government force. But, moral suasion is just another particular form of coercion in general. Martin Luther King used this method to impose his ideals on society, and with some success. Gandhi utilized this kind of pressure to force the vast machinery British Empire to obey his will.

That doesn't mean we should only restrict ourselves to these "soft" methods. King had no choice but to use this method. The blacks in the south, while numerous, were still a minority. They could not win through the application of "direct" force (i.e. violence). But there are cases when you under a normative obligation to use violence, when it actually leads to the most efficient and humane result. This can be seen quite plainly in war. If your battalion is opposed by a small force (say an entrenched company of enemy soldiers), then you should never feed your troops into the battle in a piecemeal fashion, one company at a time. As commander, your anxiety over the risk to your own men might make you reluctant to launch a large attack. You will advance your own men in a timid and haphazard manner, and if the enemy are competent, they will make you pay dearly for this reticence. The only humane decision is to attack with the entire battalion, all at once. This may spare the enemy troops pain, just as much as it spares your own. In the face of an overwhelming assault from an obviously superior force, the enemy may capitulate much sooner, sparing casualties on both sides. Sometimes, paradoxically, you must escalate the level of violence, in order to make the situation less violent.

If you can cite any example of a human society free from any form of coercion that is "aggressive and illegitimate," I would be happy to hear it. In the meantime, why would you assume that this "doesn't hold for societies in general"? If all known societies have these characteristics, then it is rational to infer that these are general characteristics.

...perhaps [government] is the least of all evils... If it isn't (as would be my claim), the question of historic roots is moot.

This is irrational. The rational way to define government, to understand any concrete phenomenon, is to examine the specific instances of it in the historical record. What has it done? How does it operate? How many varieties are there? Are some of these forms good, and others bad? In what ways good, in what ways bad? These judgments have no authority unless they follow a careful and detailed comparison of historical events. I have read some books that attempt to do this. Have you?

Your opinions about the Civil War lead me to think you have not. By the way, I disagree that this discussion is "distracting." It actually cuts right to the heart of the issue. The Civil Rights Act was designed to mitigate racist discrimination against Negroes. You agree that this was a worthy goal, in the abstract; you only disagree with the concrete method employed (positive legislation--you would rather leave the situation alone, and allow it to correct itself over time). But what are the root causes of the subjugation of the Negroes in the South? Why are there Negroes in America in the first place? The answer: Slavery.

Let's examine your justification for the attempted secession of the southern states. You very carefully ignore the central issue: Why did they secede? Instead, you focus on why they fought. Obviously, their aggression against Fort Sumter was an "assertion of independence from the North," and that was the primary motive of the Confederate troops on the ground level in every engagement; they fought to defend their homeland. They saw the Union as foreign invaders. But this war was started by politicians, not ordinary foot soldiers, so we can disregard the popular motives that sustained the lower level combatants, for the time being. What were the motives of the political chiefs on the southern side? Why did they secede? What were their objectives in this action? Once again, the answer is quite simple: To preserve the institution of slavery in the South.

Have you even skimmed the Lincoln-Douglas debates? These debates were published throughout America. The South followed them with great interest, because the main topic of debate was slavery. Douglas was convinced that Lincoln would use his office to attack the institution of slavery in the South. Everyone in the South was afraid of that. That is probably why Lincoln lost this particular Senatorial race. Whether or not Lincoln was personally anti-slavery, he was certainly perceived that way by the pro-slavery party.

It is important to remember the date when outright hostilities commenced. January 9, 1861, "when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task." (wiki) South Carolina had already declared its secession on December 26, 1860. Lincoln was not even inaugurated until March 4, 1861.

Do you understand the meaning of these facts? Lincoln hadn't done anything to these people yet. He wasn't even officially president yet! But still, they flipped out, and started a war. Why didn't they at least wait until Lincoln had taken the oath of office? If they had waited, and then Lincoln had pursued an escalation of military aggression against the South, in that case they would have been justified in responding with violence. Outside of these hypothetical fantasies, we have the concrete reality: the South started the fight. They were the initial aggressors. They violated your precious NAP. And yet you continue to press these Orwellian inversions of historical reality:

...the war was started by the North's invasion of the South's territory.

Are you saying that Lincoln first launched an invasion of the South, and then the South declared secession and responded with defensive violence? Because that is the implication of these ridiculous assertions. I remind you of the respective dates of South Carolina secession and Lincoln's inauguration: first December 26, 1860, and then March 4, 1861.

When you display such confusion on the basic order of events, how can you expect me to trust your judgments on the motives of the actors in these events?

A declaration of secession is a political act. What was the motive behind this act? Fear, primarily. And what was at the root of this fear? Lincoln's electoral victory on November 6, 1860. And why was this event the occasion of so much fear? Because the Presidency had been captured by a man who they considered to be a radical opponent of slavery, and he was backed by a majority of his own party in both chambers of Congress. Now, why did they perceive Lincoln to be a radical opponent of slavery? That one is easy: all you have to do is scan the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or any other of Lincoln's numerous public statements on this issue. The South had very sound and rational reasons to believe that Lincoln was a strong opponent of slavery.

Slavery is at the root of all these questions. Although you would rather avoid this area of discussion, I feel it is of central importance. If you could only grasp the historical significance of slavery in America, perhaps we could move on. That means you would have to acknowledge the fact that slavery, above all other issues, was the one definitive cause of the Civil War. That the institution of slavery could cause a war is not a novel idea. Intelligent leaders in my country had been pointing this out for a long time.

The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that Country with slaves if they can be got through South Carolina & Georgia. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.

One final note. I do not press these tedious historical arguments for their own sake. I am hoping that I can bring you to a more accurate appreciation of the true effects of slavery. This monstrous institution brought about the Civil War, which caused more destruction to our own national territory than any other war in our history. And still the corrosive effects of slavery persisted well into the 20th century (Jim Crow laws, for example). They continue today. If you could appreciate this factual reality, then perhaps you could agree that energetic legislative action was indeed necessary. It is better to take care of a problem like this sooner rather than later.

[Eran]

All of these are coercive measures, but the community will probably submit to the them, if they face an even worse threat from banditry and other outside forces.

Why are you confident that such measure had to be coercive? Why not expect that the vast majority of members of the community would realise the need and feel the spirit of the community enough to voluntarily contribute both time and effort and money?

We have countless examples of revolutions and rebellions against official government. Many of them successful. All of them, regardless of success, had to rely primarily on the voluntary cooperation of members of the community as, by definition, rebels aren't government and don't possess coercive capabilities.

Think about today's Syria, or yesterday's Egypt. Thousands of people risked their lives in the fight against the regime. They have done so of their own accord, not because they were forced to.

I think it is important to always remind oneself of the intrinsically coercive nature of all forms of government, no matter how this factor is mitigated or concealed.

Agreed. But not all societies have to be governed by government. Coercion is a necessary feature of government, but government is not a necessary feature of civilised, organised and peaceful society.

No society has ever existed that was completely free of "aggression," as you have defined it.

I'll accept that. Just as no society ever existed that was completely free of crime and disease. Until a couple of centuries ago, very few societies were free of slavery, religious and racial discrimination. No societies until less than a century ago gave equal rights to women.

In other words, the fact that no historic society has ever existed that exhibited X doesn't rule out that a future society might. It is certainly no reason (substitute "free of crime" for X) to strive towards such a society even if we never actually reach it.

You seem to agree.

If an ideal is worth anything at all, it is worth fighting for. In other words, it must be imposed by force.

I was about to object, but then I read on.

But, moral suasion is just another particular form of coercion in general

Again, I was going to object, but then I read on.

That doesn't mean we should only restrict ourselves to these "soft" methods.

And that made me happy again.

In the meantime, why would you assume that this "doesn't hold for societies in general"? If all known societies have these characteristics, then it is rational to infer that these are general characteristics.

As mentioned above, human history is full of examples of societies which, for the first time, exhibited some interesting, important or valuable development (democracy, no slavery, equal rights to women, etc.). In each such case, one could ask, prior to the transition, the same question you ask above. Clearly, there is, as they say, a first time for everything.

I have read some books that attempt to do this. Have you?

Indeed. Most recently, Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order from Pre-human Times to the French Revolution". Not quite as sweeping, but magnificent nonetheless was de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".

I have a fairly good understand of both how and why governments became entrenched everywhere in the world. The "why" is complicated, as the motivations of the various actors are different, complex and shifting. The "how" is as varied as humanity's history.

But what are the root causes of the subjugation of the Negroes in the South? Why are there Negroes in America in the first place? The answer: Slavery.

As a matter of history, sure. But I find discussions of slavery to be a distraction just as I find discussion of the Holocaust in contemporary Jewish/Israeli history distracting. Not irrelevant, mind you. But the relevance, in each case, is opportunistically inflated.

Slavery existed and was, if anything, crueller and deadlier in the Caribbeans or Brazil. Discrimination was suffered by Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese and Hispanics, amongst many others. And discrimination was very common (in fact, the rule, when it comes to minority populations) everywhere around the world.

I have been greatly informed and influenced, on the issue of race and culture by Thomas Sowell's writing. Are you familiar with it?

What were the motives of the political chiefs on the southern side? Why did they secede? What were their objectives in this action? Once again, the answer is quite simple: To preserve the institution of slavery in the South.

No doubt slavery was the most important single factor, though not the only one. Slavery was viewed as part of the Southern "way of life", which the Southern states felt was being trampled by the North.

Do you understand the meaning of these facts? Lincoln hadn't done anything to these people yet. He wasn't even officially president yet! But still, they flipped out, and started a war.

They started a war on their own territory. The started a defensive war. They fired at what they considered to be foreign troops on their land. I believe, in the context of a system of governments, that any territory has a right to cede from a parent political entity. At any time, and for any reason. They had no duty to wait for Lincoln's inauguration. As a matter of overall principle, though obviously not necessarily in every single instance, their fighting was justified.

The South wanted to be left alone. The North wouldn't let them. This is the fundamental nature of the war, and why, alongside the Revolutionary War, it was the only justifiable war in American history.

Are you saying that Lincoln first launched an invasion of the South, and then the South declared secession and responded with defensive violence?

What I am saying is that the war, overall, was a justified defensive war on the side of the South, an unjustified war of aggression on the Northern side. I don't know and I don't care who fired and first shots. I don't think it matters. What is of critical significance is that the South's shots were fired at Union military personnel on Southern land.

Did the South do everything right - of course not. Could they have conducted themselves more justly (even ignoring the institution of slavery, inherently unjust as it is) - of course. Were there many instances of aggression by the South? I am sure. But set those aside, and look at the "big picture". The big picture is that the South was fighting Northern invaders. The South wanted to be left alone, and the North used military force to retain its rule over the South.

I accept that slavery was the single most important factor behind the Civil War. I reject the suggestion that the Civil War was necessary to eliminate slavery - slavery was eliminated everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere without a civil (or any other) war. Even if you set aside moral concerns, slavery is an economically inefficient institution. IT is doubtful whether it would have persisted long without the Fugitive Slave Act, not to mention subsequent technological developments.

They continue today.

And this is what we need to focus on, if we are to discuss current policies like Title II. To what extent are the residual effects of slavery still felt in America, and to what extent do those justify Title II-like policies.

As I see it, we should first reach an agreement on the state of prejudice against blacks in today's America. We should then examine the extent to which such prejudice is rational. We can then discuss what the likely consequences of an elimination of Title II today would be. In an America with not just a black president, but many black elected officials in the South as well as the North. In an America in which legally-protected racist speech is both rare and marginalised.

Racially-based slavery and racial prejudice generally are wrong. If you read some of my posts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, you will see how strongly and consistently I argue against treating individuals as group members rather than people in their own right.

But, to quote Lysander Spooner, "Vices are no crimes". Prejudice is a vice, but it isn't a crime. It should be opposed through education and persuasion, public pressure and consumer action. Not with guns and jails.

I acknowledge a rare emergency exception to the NAP, but we have to be very careful when applying it. Nothing is more common than government (and people generally) using an emergency exception to excuse illegal acts. The PATRIOT act is one huge example.

Prejudice against blacks is completely marginal in today's America. And Title II has nothing to do with that. As evidence, I would cite the election of blacks in the South, as well as the complete absence of prejudiced speech from the mainstream public sphere. Based on that evidence, I have no doubt that, absent Title II, discrimination against blacks would be extremely rare.

[Spouter]

Eran, you have read Democracy In America and found it impressive. I did also. The most impressive thing to me was the author's accurate predictions about the coming Civil War.

When I contemplate the condition of the South, I can only discover two alternatives which may be adopted by the white inhabitants of those States; viz., either to emancipate the negroes, and to intermingle with them; or, remaining isolated from them, to keep them in a state of slavery as long as possible. All intermediate measures seem to me likely to terminate, and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil wars...

Did de Tocqueville have psychic powers? Obviously not. He merely had a sound understanding of social conditions in America, and he infers the likely consequences. This took no exceptional feat of intellectual prowess; I am sure that many of his contemporaries drew the same inference. It all boils down to do this: in a democratic republic like the USA, the more that the institution of "free labor" grows in one area (the North), the more that tension will build in the relationship with those areas that preserve slavery (the South). If this tension is allowed to build without any mitigating reforms (which the South refused to consider), then war is an inevitable result.

De Tocqueville's analysis of this tension contradicts your own:

I reject the suggestion that the Civil War was necessary to eliminate slavery - slavery was eliminated everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere without a civil (or any other) war.

For starters, that is historical inaccurate. The second big war of independence in the Americas, after ours, was in Haiti. This time, it was the slaves themselves who rose up to overthrow their masters (the French, in this case). Wikipedia says that "it is generally considered the most successful slave rebellion ever to have occurred in the Americas and as a defining moment in the history of Africans in the New World." So you got that wrong.

But the entire sentiment behind your assertion is wrong. Britain abolished slavery by legal decree throughout her colonies in the West, but the American South refused to even consider such actions. The South was intransigent on this point. As you said, they considered it to be part of their "way of life," and they were willing to fight to defend it. And they were not satisfied to merely lord it over their own Blacks in some kind of quasi-Feudal backwater, but they wanted to mess with Northern Blacks as well. It is one thing to splash around in your own little moral cesspool, down there in the South, but now you are going to come up to the North, and snatch away those few poor slaves who have managed to escape from their servitude, like Dred Scott and his family! This is outrageous!

It still pisses me off. The South's stupid and backward slavery is going to pervert our national Judicial processes! This one stupid court decision caused a financial panic because of "uncertainty about whether the entire West would suddenly become either slave territory or engulfed in combat like Bleeding Kansas."(wiki) So these stupid slave-mongers have not only corrupted our national Judiciary, but they caused an economic collapse. Thanks a lot, creeps.

I am guessing that it has been a long time since you read de Tocqueville. Otherwise, how could you make these ridiculous assertions:

Even if you set aside moral concerns, slavery is an economically inefficient institution. IT is doubtful whether it would have persisted long without the Fugitive Slave Act, not to mention subsequent technological developments.

The South was fully aware that slavery was less efficient than free labor. That made them cling to slavery all the more desperately.

...on this point many of them agree with their Northern countrymen in freely admitting that slavery is prejudicial to their interest; but they are convinced that, however prejudicial it may be, they hold their lives upon no other tenure. The instruction which is now diffused in the South has convinced the inhabitants that slavery is injurious to the slave-owner, but it has also shown them, more clearly than before, that no means exist of getting rid of its bad consequences. Hence arises a singular contrast; the more the utility of slavery is contested, the more firmly is it established in the laws; and whilst the principle of servitude is gradually abolished in the North, that self-same principle gives rise to more and more rigorous consequences in the South.

Can you not see that this intractable situation gave rise to a steady escalation of the tension over the years? The longer the South remained stubbornly stuck on their backward "way of life," the more they made war with the North inevitable. They were fully conscious of this, but they selfishly chose to plunge us into national disaster, rather than change their "venerable" traditions. When de Tocqueville described their position on this point, he paints a portrait of adamantine obstinance. Considering the fact that they eventually did start a war, and looking at the determination and enthusiasm with which they fought it, I think this portrait can be considered accurate. It is like they were willing to die rather than give up slavery; they were certainly willing to kill. These are the murderous thugs that you characterize as the libertarian underdogs in one of the "only justifiable war in American history."

Some are amenable to the force of moral suasion. The British empire, for example. They abolished slavery on their own, in 1833. The South was not susceptible to this form of coercion. Direct coercion was necessary (i.e. violence).

And by the way, can you not see that the conditions in America were unique? Abolition of slavery is going to take a little more effort in an independent nation like America (if slavery is firmly entrenched), then it will in a colony or protectorate of an empire. The empire issues a decree, and then slavery is legally abolished in the particular colony that is subject to that decree, east and west, south and north. But the situation in America is different, and if slavery is allowed to persist in one region, while free labor takes root in another part, then that is an inevitable recipe for civil war.

I don't know and I don't care who fired and first shots. I don't think it matters.

Of course you don't. You are trying to press a narrative that violates the order of events as we find them in the historical record. You would like me to believe that the Confederacy was only defending itself against the unjust aggression of the Union. And yet, it was the South who initiated the aggression. That is the historical fact. Everything else is fantasy land.

I truly do not understand your desire to defend the Confederacy. There can't be very many violations of the "NAP" that are worse than slavery. I admit that the Confederacy were the underdogs, and it is easier sometimes to sympathize with the underdog. But, you must put these crude emotions aside for a moment, if you can, and take a cold, hard look at the reality of the situation: They were fighting in defense of slavery.

You would prefer to cast the motivation in a different light. According to you, it was all about the defense of their territories. Here's the thing--all wars boil down to the defense of one's own territory. In every war, in all of history, one side is attacking the territory of another, and the other side is defending itself. That is the definition of war, almost. So, is every nation that defends itself against a foreign invasion automatically to be considered the just side in the contest? What about the Nazis towards the end of WWII? They were only defending themselves from the invasion of the Allied forces, after all. I don't think it matters that they precipitated this conflict through their own actions, if I am to follow your reasoning. Poland and all that are meaningless, because you "don't know and don't care who fired and first shots."

On the ground level, I certainly sympathize with the motives of Nazi troops (in the second defensive phase of the war). It doesn't matter who started the fight; with the Russian and American hordes sweeping through your territories, there is no choice but to defend yourself. It is said that the Russians, still incensed at the terrible damage inflicted on their own territories by the Germans, instantly went on an extensive rape spree among the female inhabitants of any German territory that they captured. I am sure that the news of such retaliatory atrocities spread rapidly among the troops defending Germany, and added further energy to their efforts in the field. You can't blame any of the individual troops for putting forth their maximum efforts, in this situation, even if it was their own nation that started the war in the first place.

But, even if we can absolve the troops in the field, we can not absolve the generals and politicians who put them there. Their motives are an entirely different story. Just because the troops put forward a brave and noble effort, does not mean that their efforts will contribute to a brave and noble cause. German troops bravely and selflessly fought for the political objectives of their leaders, even though these objectives were truly ignoble and pointlessly destructive.

The Confederacy was fighting for an ignoble cause. I continue to emphasize the following fact: the South started the fight. If my neighbor fires a rifle at me, I think I would be justified in an "invasion" of his property for the purpose of disarming him, don't you? Well, that's what the Civil War was all about. The South initiated this calamity, because they could not stand the idea of an end to slavery in America. Why should the Union be split into two nations (weakening the whole, as an unavoidable side effect) just to indulge the whims of Southern weirdos who believe they have the God-given right to own another human being?

I stress this point at such tedious length because you want to talk about prejudice against Blacks in America. That discussion is very relevant to the "positive" defense of Title II, but the necessary context for such a discussion is based on the facts about slavery in America (not the entire western hemisphere), which are certainly important facts, because they caused the Civil War. If the effects are large and widespread, then the causative factors must be very important. But, you seem to underestimate or minimize the relevance of slavery, and your understanding of the Civil War is thoroughly confused, so I have attempted to help you out on this point. If you are already familiar with de Tocqueville, then you already have the necessary tools close at hand.

Within the context I have tried to establish (I wonder how much of my narrative your ideology will allow you to accept), I am willing to address some of your specific questions.

As I see it, we should first reach an agreement on the state of prejudice against blacks in today's America.

It is quite nominal. When there is a representative of your race in the White House, it is more difficult to count yourself as the member of an oppressed minority. But, the important question is, what was the state of anti-Black prejudice in 1964, when the Act was made Law? It was considerable, because the South, although beaten in the field militarily, did not give up their irrational desire to subjugate Negroes in 1865, upon the date of official defeat. With the complicity of their Northern conquerors (because they were lazy), they thrust the Blacks back down into a subservient status, and they continued to lord it over them, as if they still were slaves. This continued well into the 20th century. Once again, it took the intervention of the Federal Government to correct this situation. And that only happened because of the determined efforts of citizens like Martin Luther King.

We should then examine the extent to which such prejudice is rational.

I am familiar with Burke's defense of prejudice, from the Reflections. Are you?

The defenders of Title II are not saying that is illegal to be prejudiced. You can hate Negroes all you want, but if you operate a business, and if they have valid currency, you must sell them your goods and services. What's the big deal? It is not like Affirmative Action, in which you are forced to, say, hire a Black employee, just because they are Black. Such an action may have been necessary in the past, but with a Negro in the White House, it is more difficult to justify. But Title II does not say you have to sell to Negroes; it only says you can not refuse to sell, just because they are Negro. This law protects Whites just as much as Blacks.

[Eran]

Did de Tocqueville have psychic powers? Obviously not. He merely had a sound understanding of social conditions in America, and he infers the likely consequences.

If I remember correctly, he envisioned a civil war within the Southern society, between blacks and whites, rather than a war between the North and the South.

For starters, that is historical inaccurate. The second big war of independence in the Americas, after ours, was in Haiti.

I stand corrected. I should have said that slavery was eliminated elsewhere (and not "everywhere else") without a civil war. Brazil is a primary example.

And they were not satisfied to merely lord it over their own Blacks in some kind of quasi-Feudal backwater, but they wanted to mess with Northern Blacks as well.

But they couldn't do that without the North's cooperation. What if, rather than engage in a deadly war, the North accepted the South's secession, and annulled the Fugitive Slave Law? What if escaping slaves were welcome in the North in the same way that they found harbour in Canada?

It is conceivable that a bloody slave rebellion would have taken place subsequently in the South. It is also possible that the South would have followed Brazil and most (though admittedly not all) countries in the world which had slavery, and had abolished it peacefully.

The South was fully aware that slavery was less efficient than free labor. That made them cling to slavery all the more desperately.

Interesting. I actually found de Tocqueville's sentiments to be supportive of my position. The fact that slavery was inefficient marked its end. Sure, whites held on to it to preserve their way of life (and the narrow interests of elite plantation owners). But I do believe such efforts were doomed. With advances in industrialisation and automation, with non-cooperating North, with increasing international pressure, I still firmly believe that slavery would have died out within a decade or two even without the bloody war.

Can you not see that this intractable situation gave rise to a steady escalation of the tension over the years? The longer the South remained stubbornly stuck on their backward "way of life," the more they made war with the North inevitable.

Only if one insists on preserving the union. The South's secession was precisely the move that could have averted war - had Lincoln not insisted on occupying the South militarily.

They were fully conscious of this, but they selfishly chose to plunge us into national disaster, rather than change their "venerable" traditions.

What's the worst that would have happened had the South been allowed to secede? Do you really imagine that today, in the 21st century, slavery would still have existed in the South?

Considering the fact that they eventually did start a war, and looking at the determination and enthusiasm with which they fought it, I think this portrait can be considered accurate.

Setting aside whether they can legitimately be blamed at starting a war, all that history shows is that in 1861, Southern society was not yet ready to relinquish the institution of slavery. Neither, at that time, was Brazilian society. Slavery was abolished there in 1888. Can you seriously claim that Brazilian society was less accommodating to slavery (either in terms of its economic dependence or in terms of values held within society at large) than Souther society?

You would like me to believe that the Confederacy was only defending itself against the unjust aggression of the Union. And yet, it was the South who initiated the aggression.

This argument reminds me of pro-Israelis who keep saying that "they started it". There reason I say I don't care is that even if the South did fire the first shots, the North's response wasn't proportional. By and large, the war was fought on Southern territory. By and large, the South wanted to be left alone, while the North wanted to force the Southern states to stay in the union. By and large, this was a war of defence by the South, and a war of aggression by the North.

Over 600,000 people died in the war. I sympathise with black slaves. Don't imagine for a second I don't. Don't you sympathise with those 600,000?

There can't be very many violations of the "NAP" that are worse than slavery.

Not many. Perhaps just one - murder. The war lost the lives of over 600,000 people.

I am not defending the Confederacy's policy on slavery. I agree with you 100% that slavery is a horrible institution, one that can justly be opposed by force (as it is a violation of NAP). However, you cannot legitimise killing innocent people, certainly not hundreds of thousands of them. And we agreed already that the North's reason for forcibly rejecting the South's secession wasn't the need to free slaves, but the desire to maintain the union.

I believe Northern society was much more just than Southern society prior to the war.

However, I believe the Northern aggression, especially given their initial motivation, was wholly unjustified. Had the North truly been intent on ending slavery, they could have started by rejecting the Slave Fugitive Act, and offering active help to fleeing slaves. Had that policy failed, we could have had a serious discussion about how many casualties of war justify freeing slaves. That's not what happened, and presenting the North's war as a war to free slaves is a historic distortion.

Here's the thing--all wars boil down to the defense of one's own territory. In every war, in all of history, one side is attacking the territory of another, and the other side is defending itself. That is the definition of war, almost. So, is every nation that defends itself against a foreign invasion automatically to be considered the just side in the contest? What about the Nazis towards the end of WWII? They were only defending themselves from the invasion of the Allied forces, after all. I don't think it matters that they precipitated this conflict through their own actions, if I am to follow your reasoning. Poland and all that are meaningless, because you "don't know and don't care who fired and first shots."

I have much criticism of the Allied forces' behaviour during WWII. Churchill, Truman and others involved in bombing civilians are, in my book, war criminals. Your analogy would have been apt if the South started the war by invading the North, has had serious initial successes, and then was driven back to Southern territory. In other words, if the North had credible concerns over their own territorial integrity.

I have never seen a claim (is it yours?) that the North had anything to worry about from the South, or that the North's war was at any time excused as a war to defend Northern territory. IT wasn't. It was a war to preserve the union. In other words, a war to force people who didn't want to live under US jurisdiction to do so.

If my neighbor fires a rifle at me, I think I would be justified in an "invasion" of his property for the purpose of disarming him, don't you? Well, that's what the Civil War was all about. The South initiated this calamity, because they could not stand the idea of an end to slavery in America.

Again, bad analogy. The South never presented a credible threat to the North. The South has always made that clear. They just wanted to be left alone.

Why should the Union be split into two nations (weakening the whole, as an unavoidable side effect) just to indulge the whims of Southern weirdos who believe they have the God-given right to own another human being?

The Union (and any other state) should be split as soon as part of it doesn't want to remain part of it. The North had no right to force the South to stay under a unified political umbrella. This is the essence of the war, and my views on the war are dominated by that essence.


As a last word in this post on the issue of the Civil War and slavery, do you have any reason to expect that the legacy of slavery (now fading even as a second-hand memory) is still relevant to today's (or even 1960s) America? Please do not mix slavery with prejudice and discrimination. Many minorities in America have suffered by prejudice and discrimination without having been enslaved.

What's the big deal?

I see this question as encapsulating your view. If I understand you correctly, you believe the goal Title II aims to address (removal of overt discrimination against blacks and other minorities) is a worthy one. I agree. You also believe that the means within Title II are effective. In other words, overt discrimination died sooner and faster with Title II than it would have if Title II was removed from the Civil Rights Act. Here I agree, but probably differ from you as to degrees. You seem to agree that the state of discrimination in today's America is very different from what it was in the 1960s. That much is obvious. Where do you think that state of discrimination had been in today's America had it not been for Title II?

I believe it would have been virtually the same.

Finally, I am not sure you see any significant downsides to Title II. I see them obviously as a matter of principle (and principles are important). I am also aware of practical harm caused by Title II.