If an American State, subsidized by Foreign Gov't and Foreign Fed Bankers, violate an American individuals rights to self-rule (trampling Rothbard's non-aggression principal) would the Central US Gov't have an obligation to step in? Or do State Rights and Sovereignty precede the individuals liberty?
(((The answers to this question will allow me to ask a more profound question which I will submit after a few rounds of replies. Some of you might see where I'm going with this. It's more than just, "well if the State will not protect it's member's basic rights and is allowing foreign debt / intervention policy to dictate individual sovereignty then 'yes' the central gov't should step in?" The question above begs the question "if we are seeking individualism, where are the limits to state-rights, and are we so blind and anti-centralized fed gov that we ignore the abdication / provocation of the central-state gov?")))
Keep your answer on the first two questions above and use the near-above 2nd paragraph to further your thinking.
I will pose my deeper question below (after a few rounds of answers).
[Here]
Oh boy.
First things first. It's not an "if", everyone's rights are constantly trampled by the status quo political order. Only an extremely restricted and contradictory sense of "rights" could be said to be compatible with the status quo order. I mean, I can hold up a sign in front of the local courthouse saying "The Pope is a pig sent from hell, God is a lie, and America is evil", sure, and I won't be put in an Iron Maiden and burnt at the stake. So I have the right to wave signs with unsightly rants on them. But I can't sell anything I own, even in barter, without reporting on my tax return (at least, it's illegal even though people do it all the time). As a teenager pushing my lawnmower around neighborhoods selling lawn cuts, I was breaking tax law.
So, our most basic rights are being wantonly trampled on a daily basis while the propagandists in Washington DC go on FOX News and tell everyone they're "free" because they are free to go join the Westboro Baptist protests if they like. And it is the Federal government who is the primary violator of these basic rights. The rights violations of local States are small-fry by comparison.
Your question is incoherent. The Federal Reserve - which exists at the behest of the Federal government - is responsible for the foreign debt issues. China can't just put you in debt. Your government had to first betray you by issuing the debt to China in your name through the auspices of the Federal Reserve.
Clayton -
I think you've had similar arguments so you are asuming a certain "level" of thinking behind the question.
Your argument is fallacious -- to say State Tyranny is less than Central is to ignore Slavery, Indian Land Theft, Reservationism, Jim Crow -- etc etc. State's and Central Authority have always colluded in this country. US Navy was used to protect transatlantic slavery, wars were enacted against Indians to ensure land theft - genocide - and relocation (etc). There has never been a period of 100% State Sovereignty.
From the beginning there was lobbying and jockeying for force-agency monopolies. States engaged in entangling alliances with France and England (House of Rothschild) to support Slavery and Secession.
Or do you think the 8% Ruling Master Class of the South were free-market entrepreneurs, hahaha.
Jefferson went along way towards aiding France in reclaiming Haiti from the slaves (open revolution) -- there's open hypocrisy for you; an American Revolutionary hanging an American Revolutionary. Even worse Jefferson went way beyond Constitutional scope and State Sovereignty in the Louisiana Purchase (naturalizing foreign citizenry -- phew).
My argument is not against Jefferson nor any Founder. My question is very very simple, and the answer is even more simple: "If a State is tyranical and forming foreign alliances against individual liberty then the central gov't (under the Constitution) has the duty to overthrow said tyranny and entangling alliances."
Once you are able to give that answer I can then ask a deeper question -- if you cannot give it and would rather take me on a semantical journey of which "tyranny would you rather live under, 'State or Federal'," then you will miss the exercise.
"Oh Boy" -- I was not talking about the Federal Reserve (1913 - Present) -- I was talking about Central Gov't vs State Gov't and the notion of individualism; which comes first in a free-enterprise?
I think you've had similar arguments so you are asuming a certain "level" of thinking behind the question. Your argument is fallacious -- to say State Tyranny is less than Central is to ignore Slavery, Indian Land Theft, Reservationism, Jim Crow -- etc etc. State's and Central Authority have always colluded in this country. US Navy was used to protect transatlantic slavery, wars were enacted against Indians to ensure land theft - genocide - and relocation (etc). There has never been a period of 100% State Sovereignty. From the beginning there was lobbying and jockeying for force-agency monopolies. States engaged in entangling alliances with France and England (House of Rothschild) to support Slavery and Secession. Or do you think the 8% Ruling Master Class of the South were free-market entrepreneurs, hahaha. Jefferson went along way towards aiding France in reclaiming Haiti from the slaves (open revolution) -- there's open hypocrisy for you; an American Revolutionary hanging an American Revolutionary. Even worse Jefferson went way beyond Constitutional scope and State Sovereignty in the Louisiana Purchase (naturalizing foreign citizenry -- phew). My argument is not against Jefferson nor any Founder. My question is very very simple, and the answer is even more simple: "If a State is tyranical and forming foreign alliances against individual liberty then the central gov't (under the Constitution) has the duty to overthrow said tyranny and entangling alliances." Once you are able to give that answer I can then ask a deeper question -- if you cannot give it and would rather take me on a semantical journey of which "tyranny would you rather live under, 'State or Federal'," then you will miss the exercise. "Oh Boy" -- I was not talking about the Federal Reserve (1913 - Present) -- I was talking about Central Gov't vs State Gov't and the notion of individualism; which comes first in a free-enterprise?
I appreciate the amateur psychoanalysis but, no, I'm not responding to past discussions, I'm responding to what you wrote. The fact is that all governments in all forms, central or district, are inherently coercive and criminal in nature. To stop a man going about his business and not hurting anyone is a crime, it's kidnapping or false imprisonment or whatever. Unless you have a gun, uniform and a magical tin badge. It's superstitious to think that a magical uniform and tin badge make it not a crime anymore when you stop a man going about his business and not hurting anyone. Yet this is the essence of any government. Want to sell apples? Purchase this license first or go to jail. Want to extend your house? Submit an application for inspection before and after or go to jail. Want to ship those widgets across "the border"? Submit to customs and pay "export duties" or go to jail.
These and the uncountable other interferences into peaceful, productive enterprise have one over-arching purpose, to control capital (especially capital flight) and ensure a steady stream of tax revenue. District governments (such as States and Counties) do it on a small scale and the central government does it on a grand scale.
We should not ask the central government to "intervene" into the affairs of a district government, even to "ensure liberty". Centralization of political power is an unmitigated evil and the intervention excuse is just one among the panoply of excuses made for political centralization. The reality is that government is inherently abusive and the only realistic answer is unlimited secession, cf Hans Hoppe. No one should ever be forced into political union against their will and the only just resolution of political disagreements is to part ways.
Please read this (pp. 335ff) for a detailed discussion of my position (I'm Hoppean on this issue).
Is this only a question for minarchists and beltway libertarians?
States don't have rights. States are fictional entities. There is no such thing as sovereignty - it's just a euphemism for ownership of human beings. There's another word for that, which also begins with an 's'. I am not going to debate whether or not you should beat your slaves, or how often - you shouldn't have slaves. Notwithstanding this fact, let me rephrase your question, so as to further illustrate the problem...
Does a large criminal organisation have a moral or legal duty to intervene to stop crimes by smaller groups of criminals?
Asking for protection from a large criminal organisation is not a good idea. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts - they do it because it removes their competition in terms of extorting from you as much as they possibly can.
Let's imagine that you're being abused by the state government of Montana, or something, and you can't possibly defend yourself... You need Washington to rain down Tomahawk cruise missiles, or whatever it is they do in these situations. If the government of Montana suddenly turned evil, and there was nothing you could do to defend yourself, who are you going to run to when the US Federal Government turns evil?
a question for minarchists and beltway libertarians
QFT
States do not have rights, they have powers.
Yes -- I can see now that the question (is too simple for this crowd it stirs "over" thinking and semantical "beltways"). I appreciate your "rephrasing," the question.
Obviously when Jefferson "purchased" Louisianna he over-stepped his own view on central planning and given that Statists (at the state level) and Statists (at the federal level) needed collusion and monopoly power to enforce Land Theft, Reservationism, Slavery, Transatlantic Slave Trade, Fugitive Slave Laws, on and on and on -- Given these realities how then do we base anti-Lincoln sentiment if favor of a "freer" period; should we not hold every period prior to that in contempt of "self-rule."
Slavery and Reservationism (before and after the Constitution) are antithesis to non-aggression principle every Rothbardian holds dear at a more fundemental level (a causative level) toward in-evitable civil-war.
Meaning you cannot have those "evils" without collusion or "unionized" agreements between Statists (State and Federal levels).
I'll cut it off there for now.
I never said we should ask Gov't to intervene.
The question is pretty simple, maybe too simple.
If we know that the period before Lincoln (and central banking) was chalk full of collusion and monopolistic power granting (from central gov't to state), as slavery, genocide. land theft, and fugitive slave laws would dictate, and the abdication of basic free-enterprise (especially Rothbardian) principles of non-aggression (toward "self-ownership") between State and Individual; then why do "we" harken back (nostalgically) toward "freer" days, saying "The Founders intended all individuals to be free and that central gov't will not overstep such and such boundaries" when clearly they did over step -- in all ways that are fundamentally important to the individual?
As an example: Lincoln did not think to himself -- "I want to kill 600K people" (I'm not a fan of 'everything' Lincoln so ignore the temptation) -- The South could of observed the Constitution and honored non-aggression; I guess what I'm saying is if we follow the non-aggression principle all the way out we'll see that slavery of millions is far worse (given the rape and pedophilia alone) then a civil war to end it -- "IF" we believe in fundamental Rothbardian principles and if we look honestly at the "real" Founders and ignore their philosophical musing regarding "liberty."
I think we need to find solutions using todays intelligence and stop justifying our obviously more ethical stance on "liberty" toward what-would-founders-do type thinking.
Those who speak on behalf of Mises and Rothbard should keep their arguments on the present -- "harkening" back does nothing more than to create "north-south" or dem-repub perpetual two-sided thinking going on and on.
We cannot solve individualist problems through the collectivizing force of ballot-box-bingo; it is mathematically and empirically impossible to do so. Politics is Lobbying (bribery) and Abdication (voting); how can we gain self-rule through these means?
Kevin: I never said we should ask Gov't to intervene.
Then what the hell are you saying or asking? Your language is filled with jargon that you yourself do not seem to understand and which renders your posts incomprehensible to me, at least. Maybe I'm just stupid. Is it not possible to rephrase your question using only words you would use in everyday English (i.e. when speaking to a gas station attendant)? You keep claiming your question is simple but then you keep using jargon that clutters it up. What is "fundamental Rothbardian principles", for example? This is not obvious. Rothbard wrote a ton. Which specific principles are you referring to?*
The question is pretty simple, maybe too simple. If we know that the period before Lincoln (and central banking) was chalk full of collusion and monopolistic power granting (from central gov't to state), as slavery, genocide. land theft, and fugitive slave laws would dictate, and the abdication of basic free-enterprise (especially Rothbardian) principles of non-aggression (toward "self-ownership") between State and Individual; then why do "we" harken back (nostalgically) toward "freer" days, saying "The Founders intended all individuals to be free and that central gov't will not overstep such and such boundaries" when clearly they did over step -- in all ways that are fundamentally important to the individual?
Hans Hoppe explicitly blasts Constitutionalism. It's a farce. "Here, we've signed a piece of paper that we alone can interpret and enforce and we promise that we won't do anything in violation of how we interpret it or else, well there is no else, since we're certainly not going to impose consequences on ourselves."
As an example: Lincoln did not think to himself -- "I want to kill 600K people" (I'm not a fan of 'everything' Lincoln so ignore the temptation) -- The South could of observed the Constitution and honored non-aggression; I guess what I'm saying is if we follow the non-aggression principle all the way out we'll see that slavery of millions is far worse (given the rape and pedophilia alone) then a civil war to end it -- "IF" we believe in fundamental Rothbardian principles and if we look honestly at the "real" Founders and ignore their philosophical musing regarding "liberty." I think we need to find solutions using todays intelligence and stop justifying our obviously more ethical stance on "liberty" toward what-would-founders-do type thinking.
We're not beltway libertarians here on mises.org, well, most of us aren't. We leave the "What would John Adams Do?" to the pseudo-libertarians at the Cato Institute.
Maybe it would help if you pointed to a specific example of a specific individual making the specific point that's bothering you. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about. It is indisputable that most people were freer 200 years ago in the United States than they are today, in all the ways that count, anyways. You might go to prison for being openly homosexual, which is a symptom of the tyranny of the times, but I wonder how many modern homosexuals would willingly exchange having to live in the closet for actually being able to keep their own goddamn income.
It seems to me that you should spend some more time reading the Mises daily and browsing the archives. The whole message of Rothbardian theory of social change is that change is never brought about within the status quo, it only occurs through paradigm shifts in the opinion-molding class (academics, newsmen, etc.)
*Yes, I meant to end that sentence with a preposition... grammar Nazis can go to hell!
Ah, I don't disagree with you about historical nostalgia, but I don't think that's the point of skeptical revisionism.
The national mythos beatifies 'Great Men' like Lincoln. It makes them part of its epic saga. I don't think it's out of order to point out the errors in thinking and perception when this occurs.
The Confederate States seemed to be interpreting the constitution the same way it had been interpreted for the previous seven decades. It's not a document that really enshrines non-aggression as a principle.
On the subject of pedophilia and rape... This was the 19th Century. Many more 'free' children would have been subject to terrible physical and sexual abuse within their own families than is the case today - probably most of them would have been subject to abuses that could easily lead to a long prison conviction for the perpetrators today. Obviously not every single family, and the USA would probably have been better than Europe or anywhere else in the world at this point, but still... The evidence is overwhelming. Something in peoples' psyche made a Great War to end all Wars seem like a good idea.
'Harkening back' is silly, I agree, but it's not silly to show how government is able to justify its authority over people today by distorting the true nature of history.
Kevin:As an example: Lincoln did not think to himself -- "I want to kill 600K people" (I'm not a fan of 'everything' Lincoln so ignore the temptation) -- The South could of observed the Constitution and honored non-aggression; I guess what I'm saying is if we follow the non-aggression principle all the way out we'll see that slavery of millions is far worse (given the rape and pedophilia alone) then a civil war to end it -- "IF" we believe in fundamental Rothbardian principles and if we look honestly at the "real" Founders and ignore their philosophical musing regarding "liberty."
Are you justifying the Civil War by saying that slavery is worse than war? If that is the case, you are not using the NAP principle consistently, you are using consequentialism.... So I would say before even continuing this debate : pick your weapon: consequentialism or NAP
Kevin:Those who speak on behalf of Mises and Rothbard should keep their arguments on the present -- "harkening" back does nothing more than to create "north-south" or dem-repub perpetual two-sided thinking going on and on.
Why include Mises in this discussion of NAP?
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
I know that you do not "know" me but no one living in modern times would intelligently say that Slavery is worse than War (in the short-run) -- Slavery is War it must always end in bloody uprisings (Haiti) or it must end by Fiat Aggression (civil war) or it could end by the slave-masters saying, "wow we really suck -- let's take Lincoln's buyout and let these people go."
I'm NO fan of Corporatism; but "we" (Africans and Indians) are freer today with more opportunity then during Mass Genocide, Land Theft, Broken Treaties, Fugitive Slave Laws, Transatlantic Slave Ships, Mass Rape-Sodomy, Mass Infanticide, Forced Abortions, and Human Cattle Drives (Reservationism).
During Capitalism the above happened.
Capitalism is a Feudalist / Nationalistic Model (same as Communism)
---Puts horror on its own people
Corporatism (fascism) puts the "horror" on other Nations; which is bad, but the "horror" is so spread out it's more of an existence tax then out-and-out Chattel Slavery. When you pour fascism over nationalists you get opportunistic civil wars, every time. So, I'm not saying corporatism is better than capitalism (chattel slavery - reservationism) but it is for the people living in the continental United States.
Only un-compassionate wealthy white men or nostalgic un-sympathetic white men would think that Chattel Slavery is less perverse than Chattel Corporatism -- Lower Prison Rates, Better Education, No history of Mass Rape / Genocide etc etc.
A hard-booked self-studying compassionate (Rothbard type) NAP white man would "see" the difference between Chattel Slavery and Chattle Debt.
Nationalism leads to Fascism
---Capitalism to Corporatism
---Socialism to Nazism
You cannot keep-by-force a nationalistic model; it must either contract towards liberty (ubber-wealthy give up more and more power) or it must expand towards the most contemptible foreign-based tyranny.
Mises model of Consumer-Sovereignty will 100% lead toward an Individualist Society where we have the highest freedoms, a level of freedom un-dreamed of.
We don't have a word yet for what comes after Fascism -- because in the beginning, especially the Corporatist model of it and less the civil war outbreaks (opportunism) the "horror" is far more manageable. But in the long-run it turns into what we have today and when there are no more people to spread Level 1 and Level 2 fascism "existence tax" over what comes after I do not want to imagine.
There was no "good" Founding Father -- Lincoln was the only one who had the cajones to bring barbarism to an end; then the "wealthy" realized that they needed to turn globally, that American people would no longer tolerate one group dominating another physically -- or at least not that particular model (Chattel slavery). Reservationism and Broken Treaties when on for a bit longer though, didn't it; then of course we had "prison slavery" (the new and improved). Regardless, the Indian population stabilized and African-American population flourished -- those of us who chose for ourselves and our children to build entrepreneurial opportunity have done really well for ourselves.
We only need to meditate on Rothbard's NAP and Mises Consumer-Sovereignty to build the idealistic model of Self-Rule and Anarchy.
You cannot have Anarchy while mainting a Central and State-Level Slave Based economy where the north and south have mounting debt-financing going on with the House of England and France; the absurdity lead to the civil war (off-gassing).
It would of require the first generation of Founder's to "self-sacrifice" their income stream (which was based on centralized statist barbarism) to pre-vent the civil war (off-gassing).
I agree -- but it is "folly" to try to educate logically on why free-enterprise is the best model (today) by saying men were "freer" during slavery, broken treaties, land theft, mass rape - infanticide - sodomy, forcd abortion, and mass genocide.
It's a barbaric and heartless opening thesis, smile.
I'm of African and Indian ancestry and my Irish ancesters (being catholic) were only a few margin points "better off."
The upper 8% were the only ones who could vote -- No women or minorities (obviously)
On the subject of pedophilia and rape...
That "sentiment" was pure rubbish. You are #1 un-educated to the level an extent of rape-sodomy-infanticide was going on by the faux "Helenic" south. To say that "free" children (black families) would of been more cruel by pure-speculation (not one shred of statistical or evidential fact) is highly ignorant.
There were ONLY (as if) 1,000 to 2,000 blacks killed per year duing Black Codes "era" -- Virtually no children were drown or fed to crocodiles during this period, virtually no women were forced to have abortions, and the numbers of rape and sodomy (white on black) was far far far far lower. It just wasn't as easy when men were "allowed" to defend their families. It was still a horrible period -- no doubt, but what you are suggesting is grotesque and un-founded.
Kevin: I know that you do not "know" me but no one living in modern times would intelligently say that Slavery is worse than War (in the short-run) -- Slavery is War it must always end in bloody uprisings (Haiti) or it must end by Fiat Aggression (civil war) or it could end by the slave-masters saying, "wow we really suck -- let's take Lincoln's buyout and let these people go."
The point is that the two are incommensurate. It doesn't make sense to say "War against slaveholders is justified because slavery is worse than war." The rest is just details.
Native Americans are safely contained within patches of desert called "reservations", their "leadership" is bought off or, if they get too noisy, taken out as in the Wounded Knee incident. Blacks of whatever origin in the United States are a carefully controlled and subsidized political pressure group ever since the Civil Rights movement in the 60's gave the Establishment a good scare. But look at the rest of the US empire. Look at all the suffering, plunder and pillaging that is done by the United State government through its "free trade" agreements, its economic warfare, its central bank inflation and its voracious appetite for natural resources, especially oil. Do you think the families of the million-plus Iraqis blown to smithereens by US forces (or Iraqi insurgents fighting US forces) consider themselves freer under the mantle of US empire than they were under Saddam?? I doubt it.
"Capitalism" is not a historical era. Check your definitions.
"Communism" and "capitalism" when used as buzzwords by the political elites are no different. The political elites are always taking about the same economic system.... WE work, THEY eat. That's the only economic system they are ever fighting for, whatever label they apply to it.
But in economics, "capitalism" and "communism" are clearly distinguishable, and also distinguishable from feudalism.
Naw, there's no "ism" that ever scared anybody but political elites armed with divisions of tanks and infantry are another matter.
Corporatism (fascism) puts the "horror" on other Nations; which is bad, but the "horror" is so spread out it's more of an existence tax then out-and-out Chattel Slavery.
As a wise friend of mine once told me, "it's all about perspective." I think the Afghan farmer whose son is gunned down by trigger-happy US soldiers while riding a motorcycle into town would disagree with you on whether the US occupation of Afghanistan is tolerable or not.
When you pour fascism over nationalists you get opportunistic civil wars, every time. So, I'm not saying corporatism is better than capitalism (chattel slavery - reservationism) but it is for the people living in the continental United States.
My recommendation to you: Try to make your points without using any word that ends in "-ism" and refraing from using the words "us" "we" "them" "they" "their" "our" and so on. It's good practice and sharpens the mind. Nobody in the history of the world has ever willingly died for an "-ism".
Only un-compassionate wealthy white men or nostalgic un-sympathetic white men would think that Chattel Slavery is less perverse than Chattel Corporatism -- Lower Prison Rates, Better Education, No history of Mass Rape / Genocide etc etc. A hard-booked self-studying compassionate (Rothbard type) NAP white man would "see" the difference between Chattel Slavery and Chattle Debt.
I like your anger but you need to focus it more sharply. It's as silly to suggest that white people are especially prone to enslaving as it is to suggest that Jews are especially prone to double-dealing. It's useless generalization and lazy thinking. The reality is that the principle of enslavement is a worldwide phenomenon, practiced virtually everwhere on the globe with a few minor exceptions (Afghanistan was one of them) and the European/Anglo-American elites (white elites) have perfected the art of it. If there's any connection between whiteness and enslavement, that is it. Despite the wars of the 20th century, Europe/England/America has colonized, subjugated or outright enslaved a large portion of the globe. Russia, China, Iran and some other powers lie outside of this sphere of domination which explains why those countries are constantly characterized as evil or terroristic within the Western propaganda machine.
There was no "good" Founding Father -- Lincoln was the only one who had the cajones to bring barbarism to an end; then the "wealthy" realized that they needed to turn globally, that American people would no longer tolerate one group dominating another physically -- or at least not that particular model (Chattel slavery).
Lincoln didn't care about slavery, it was just a point of leverage in the larger dispute. Lincoln was just another run-of-the-mill self-seeking politician seeking his own advancement and aggrandizement. He achieved it at the cost of 100's of thousands of innocent lives (small-fry compared to the shitstorm the European elites would start a half-century later).
Reservationism and Broken Treaties when on for a bit longer though, didn't it;
Um, it's not still going on?? To what neutral third-party court have Indian treaties ever been submitted when Native American tribes have complained the US government was breaking its promises? None. Ever. US courts review US promises and always conclude that the US is keeping its promises or maybe needs to pay a little hush money to the tribal leaders.
then of course we had "prison slavery" (the new and improved).
That we do. Over 2 million Americans are enslaved in a world with no rules. At least slave-holders had an economic interest in not abusing their slaves to the point their productivity would be decreased but the ganglords of prison do whatever they want. There is no reason for them to permit you to live or not sexually or physically abuse you every remaining day in your life. And that's precisely what is going on in America's prisons.
Regardless, the Indian population stabilized and African-American population flourished -- those of us who chose for ourselves and our children to build entrepreneurial opportunity have done really well for ourselves. We only need to meditate on Rothbard's NAP and Mises Consumer-Sovereignty to build the idealistic model of Self-Rule and Anarchy.
Naw, we don't need idealism, common decency will do just fine.
Kevin:I know that you do not "know" me but no one living in modern times would intelligently say that Slavery is worse than War (in the short-run) -- Slavery is War it must always end in bloody uprisings (Haiti) or it must end by Fiat Aggression (civil war) or it could end by the slave-masters saying, "wow we really suck -- let's take Lincoln's buyout and let these people go.
You are missing my point completely. You cannot include a consquentialistic claim using the NAP... and you cant use a NAP claim using consequentialism. To do so is being inconsistent with NAP or consequentialism. You are justifying the Civil War by using consequentialism... so I do not know why you are talking about Rothbard's NAP to begin with. Again, I ask you: pick your weapon : consquentialism or NAP
I never said (in the first place) that NAP was even a criterion of "thought" that existed during The Founding or during Lincoln's Era -- What I was going to ellude to if someone could of answered the question at face value (in the simplistic and conversational terms it was presented) is WHY do "we" as Miseseans or Rothbardians knowing that physical slavery is a far greater evil than "un-just taxation" tend to take the side of the South (the upper 8% who owned slaves colluded with central gov't, foreign gov'ts, and foreign centralized banking) over that of the North -- arguing succession over un-just taxation?
If "we" believe in NAP and given that all Rothbardian arguments for free-entreprise (his anarcho-capitalism) can be driven back to NAP why do we use the Civil War to argue in favor of the "right" to nullyfication -- It inevitably brings up the tiresome never ending back-and-forth sentimentalism over the absolutist position that Lincoln (alone) was responsible for Civil War when in modern times we argue that it is Central Bankers who pushed Bush to war (that he did not act on whim that this was calculated by men that men never see and not a former MLB owner? Why do we "harken" back (nostalgically -- as Rothbardians and Rockwellians tend to) of a "freer" period of time when whole races of people were living under a kind of servitude un-imagineable today. Especially when DiLorenzo ignored how much the South (the upper 8% who owned the slaves) were forming tangling alliances with France - Brittian - House of Rothschilds (in France and England). The latter having a deep desire to push slavery out west; that the South had been subsidized for a long time prior to talks of succession. That France and England had standing armies in Mexico and Canada to invade the U.S on the side of south -- for what free-enterprise purposes, hahaha. None of these things were talked about in his books or debates. Why would Misses Institute make such a lopsided argument when NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty (plus the Southern 8% in-debtedness / tangling alliance with Brit - Franc) makes arguing for the Southern "right" to Succede perverse.
NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty (in modern language -- zero harkening back -- zero intellectual reparations) are all that is needed.
From our vantage point we only need to see that there was NEVER a period of NAP or Consumer-Soveriegnty prior to Lincoln (owing to or because of Lincoln), so to hang him now when the South (the ruling 8%) were so out of ethics (developing entangling alliances with Former Colonial Powers and Rothschilds) seems like a misguided way to ring in the notion of free-enterprise. Or is it me?
Doesn't NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty stand on their own?
DiLorenzo wrote an entire book on Lincoln -- as if Statism and Central banking was created by Lincoln. The South (the ruling 8%) had long been indebted to the Rotschilds (England and France Central Bankers); they struck deals and Brit-France had soldiers parked in Canada and Mexico waiting to aid the South (to push slavery into the western states and to re-establish a North American foothold). None of this metioned in the DiLorenzo book and he's a tauted Rothbardian, quoted by many Mises Institute scholars (etc). So when you say "we here on Mises(dot)org" are not making "what would John Adams do" type political-historical re-visionism then what do you call it. Especially know that Big State and Big Central Gov needed to collude to make Slavery - Fugitive Slave Laws - Transatlantic Slavery, Land Theft, Reservationism, and Mass Genocide "cost effective" -- can you imagine the free-market costs of keeping Relocation and Slavery alive?
The Lincoln bashing is un-necessary if the Mises Institute does not "harken back" -- I mean why that period; why not the periods that led up to it, it's pointless. To say "hey libs and neocons Lincoln was an idiot, the Souther States had a constitutional right to succede to continue indebtedness to Rothschilds, to aid in western slave expansion -- 'hey' guys these are some of the reasons we think nullification or succession are good ideas today?"
The best arguments we can make are NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty -- I can defeat any Liberal or GOP position with those two gems I don't need to find one Pres. Administration better than another. No one was making the 600K Civil War was a "benefit" to liberty type argument which then required the Mises Institute to back the DiLorenzo book -- it's intellectual reparations; we don't need a Big State Nullification or Succession.
According to Mises succession is gained at the POS and by localism -- neither require historical re-interpritation or "Founding Father" justifications.
Lot's of Mises scholars make "harken" back arguments -- are you serious, please don't ask me to prove it, you must have not been thinking that one through.
---Block talks about Washer Woman "rights" back in the 1840's
---DiLorenzo's Lincoln
---Even Ron Paul talks about the Founders
---I've heard Rockwell do it
---Napolitano
I could keep going on -- maybe I misundertood what you meant to say versus what you wrote?
Again, you are evading my point completely... until you address what I say, this debate is not going to go anywhere
Kevin: We're not beltway libertarians here on mises.org, well, most of us aren't. We leave the "What would John Adams Do?" to the pseudo-libertarians at the Cato Institute. DiLorenzo wrote an entire book on Lincoln -- as if Statism and Central banking was created by Lincoln. The South (the ruling 8%) had long been indebted to the Rotschilds (England and France Central Bankers); they struck deals and Brit-France had soldiers parked in Canada and Mexico waiting to aid the South (to push slavery into the western states and to re-establish a North American foothold). None of this metioned in the DiLorenzo book and he's a tauted Rothbardian, quoted by many Mises Institute scholars (etc).
DiLorenzo wrote an entire book on Lincoln -- as if Statism and Central banking was created by Lincoln. The South (the ruling 8%) had long been indebted to the Rotschilds (England and France Central Bankers); they struck deals and Brit-France had soldiers parked in Canada and Mexico waiting to aid the South (to push slavery into the western states and to re-establish a North American foothold). None of this metioned in the DiLorenzo book and he's a tauted Rothbardian, quoted by many Mises Institute scholars (etc).
I've not read DiLorenzo's books on the subject and, personally, I find the whole subject rather tiresome. I live on the West Coast and I find it impossible to understand how, 150+ years since the Civil War, the people who live in "the North" are still worshipping Abraham Lincoln as if he were some kind of demi-god and how the people who live in "the South" are still trying to make apologetics for the actions of Southern slave-owners. My understanding of DiLorenzo's work is that he's simply trying to dethrone Lincoln from his mythical demi-god status in US consciousness. Lincoln was no saint and, in fact, he was just another cynical, calculating tyrant like all but a tiny handful of our Presidents have been.
So when you say "we here on Mises(dot)org" are not making "what would John Adams do" type political-historical re-visionism then what do you call it. Especially know that Big State and Big Central Gov needed to collude to make Slavery - Fugitive Slave Laws - Transatlantic Slavery, Land Theft, Reservationism, and Mass Genocide "cost effective" -- can you imagine the free-market costs of keeping Relocation and Slavery alive? The Lincoln bashing is un-necessary if the Mises Institute does not "harken back" --
The Lincoln bashing is un-necessary if the Mises Institute does not "harken back" --
Ah, that's where you're wrong. The myths created around tyrants are a crucial part of modern propaganda, going back to at least King David. I have this excellent book on King David which applies a critical historical method to the Biblical narrative of King David and arrives at a starkly contrasting picture of David from that which you see portrayed in the plain text of the Bible or by Michelangelo or Shakespeare. Abraham Lincoln has been wrapped in a layer upon layer of myths and year after year, these myths are taught to doe-eyed schoolchildren while constructing "log cabins" out of popsicle sticks and Elmer's glue. The purpose of these myths is to imbue the Presidency with an aura of magnificence, grandeur and moral force just as the myths surrounding King David have been used by generations of European monarchs to reinforce their own authority as The Powers that Be, that is, the powers that are ordained of God. I do not wish to return to the time of Southern confederacy. I simply wish not to have American children indoctrinated with awe and reverence for an office that has become indistinguishable from Caesar's throne in the ridiculous powers it commands and the capricious way in which it exercises those powers.
You do realize that the US President has the power to have you seized and detained indefinitely if he labels you an enemy combatant, cf Brandon Mayfield. And you do realize that the War on Terror has a racist component to it, right? What is the dominant religion on the continent of Africa? It's not Christianity, it's Islam. And the identification of Islam with terrorism is precisely what is going on in the right-wing propaganda machine, cf Peter King's hearings. What color have the "perpetrators" consistently been in the FBI terror sting operations have supposedly stopped in Miami and elsewhere over the last several years? And you think it makes sense to support aggrandizement of executive power, that somehow imbuing the Presidency with ever more terrifying powers is empowering blacks and preventing slavery?? You must be crazy!
I mean why that period; why not the periods that led up to it, it's pointless. To say "hey libs and neocons Lincoln was an idiot, the Souther States had a constitutional right to succede to continue indebtedness to Rothschilds, to aid in western slave expansion -- 'hey' guys these are some of the reasons we think nullification or succession are good ideas today?"
As Tom Woods has been patiently pointing out for some time, nullification was never used or even threatened to be use to continue slavery, but it has been used to stop slavery.
The best arguments we can make are NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty -- I can defeat any Liberal or GOP position with those two gems I don't need to find one Pres. Administration better than another. No one was making the 600K Civil War was a "benefit" to liberty type argument which then required the Mises Institute to back the DiLorenzo book -- it's intellectual reparations; we don't need a Big State Nullification or Succession. According to Mises succession is gained at the POS and by localism -- neither require historical re-interpritation or "Founding Father" justifications. Lot's of Mises scholars make "harken" back arguments -- are you serious, please don't ask me to prove it, you must have not been thinking that one through. ---Block talks about Washer Woman "rights" back in the 1840's ---DiLorenzo's Lincoln ---Even Ron Paul talks about the Founders ---I've heard Rockwell do it ---Napolitano I could keep going on -- maybe I misundertood what you meant to say versus what you wrote?
I guess it would be more constructive if we were dissecting specific quotes rather than making sweeping generalizations. I disagree at one point or another with every Mises.org scholar I've read, I have no religious devotion to any of them. Let's tear apart a specific quote.
Clayton I think we "agree" (fundamentally) more than we disagree.
I'm not a Mises-deist or a Rothbardian demagogue.
I LOOOOVE NAP and C-S (consumer-soveriegnty). With those two principles (ideas - notions) one can rip apart any politicial philosophy.
I might be taking liberties with the interpritation of both, but every great idea can use a boost (nip and tuck) here and there.
Were you arguing that "we" were freer back then - prior to Lincoln - then today because the president has war-time powers that far overreach constitutional scope? I do not know one person the president arrested and I challenge you to name the people you "know" (you personally). There are more people dying from whale bone penile impalement (per year) then there are people languishing in prison on Presidential Order -- hahahaha.
Do I like that he has those powers? No. Would I trade Chattel Slavery (having family members sold off, women having forced abortions, mass infanticide, rape of women and girls and sodomy of young boys, and not "owning" any property what-so-ever) for life in Modern Times? Hmmmmmmm -- let me think about this........Hahahahaha
Should we tolerate any % of lost liberty -- NOOOO. But that is different that suggest to Blacks and Indians (half my ancestry) or suggesting to Irish Catholics (my other half) that we were freer prior to Lincolnian times then we are now -- hahahahahaha. Come on now (think)!!
Izzy -- You are putting a false claim on me. I never said (ONCE) that since Slavery is worse than War (or War worse than slavery -- depending on how you view liberty -- one can "run" from War or if injured "pinky toe shot off" be freed from it) that we should not discuss Lincoln in negative terms; but if we are going to go after the one politician who died in service and elimination of the Rape-Sodomy-Bondage practice known as Chattle Slavery we should EITHER understand what life under a system like that effects (on the Upper 8% who owned slaves - On abdicating whites who watch idly - On the slaves themselves - and On the Nation as a whole) OR we should tread carefully; meaning we should not so flipantly cast him off as the worst president ever while holding up the right of the south to succede (referring to the latter as a qualifier to modern day succession).
I hope the reason why is clear (on the latter) -- it should be so repugnantly obvious that it need not be discussed -- "why one should be indelicate regarding slavery and the "innocence" of the South regarding the "War of Aggression" (the latter phrase is just stupid and whiny and sore-looserish).
To have slavery in the first place -- for it to exist -- there must be Gov't Collusion (at the State and Federal Level), Gov't Subsidization, and Powerful Force-Agency.
You must have THE OPPOSITE of free-markets.
Capitalism and Communism are "nationalistic models" -- When either is run by "TRULY" benevolent leadship it's (possible) to have a golden society; but the model is always "thought up" by people who want to rule and power corrupts (yadda yadda yadda).
It appears that there cannot be force-agency (at all) and thus there cannot be abdication of self-rule and obviously you cannot FORCE others into subjugation.
I think you also asked why am I discussing Mises and NAP -- I probably was talking about Consumer-Sovereignty which trumps Rothbard's definition of individual-ownership. I think the combination of NAP and C-S builds the freest society possible. When the consumer is "free" from regulation and subsidization then everyone is free because everyone is a consumer -- a human being can ONLY be a consumer.
Whether you believe in the Big Bang (which does not require "belief" more an one possible scientific plausibility) or God Creationism both can agree that there was ONLY one "Production Moment" -- Everything that happened afterward is Consumption. Man "molds" or "converts" or "puts together" component parts -- Man does not "create" anything. Thus Economic Producers are in truth a subset of Consumers; they must consume resources, knowledge, tools, etc before they can "create" or "produce."
My point with the latter again (if it's not clear) is that when consumers are free -- everyone is free.
Kevin:Izzy -- You are putting a false claim on me. I never said (ONCE) that since Slavery is worse than War (or War worse than slavery
These are your words :
Kevin:no one living in modern times would intelligently say that Slavery is worse than War
Unless you consider yourself part of the 'unintelligent' ones that do not claim that Slavery is worse than war, I have said nothing false.
It is indisputable that most people were freer 200 years ago in the United States than they are today, in all the ways that count, anyways.
That's either a joke, or the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.
You might go to prison for being openly homosexual, which is a symptom of the tyranny of the times, but I wonder how many modern homosexuals would willingly exchange having to live in the closet for actually being able to keep their own goddamn income.
Ok, by your follow up, it was not a joke...
BTW, you do know most gays are leftist democrats, meaning they support taxes and the welfare state....
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Slaveholders brought British and French soldier on both our borders -- owing to their debt and allied position about pushing slavery out west.
War was not brought on the heads of slave holders -- they represented only 8% of the South. 92% of the remaining southern white men did NOT know their "betters" were in-debted to England and France -- nor would they trade a union with the North over re-colonialization with France and England.
Debt brought war down on the heads of the Southern (upper 8%) because they sold themselves into debt-slavery to subsidized physical slavery.......An option was for them to go into bankruptsy. The buy-out Lincoln offered was not enough to clear the debt -- The South had no choice because France and England did not want them to ever pay that debt down, they wanted slavery pushed into the west and control the natural ports of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.
I also said Slavery is not worse than War (in the short-run) but in the long run it IS War -- War against NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty.
The latter being my point on why "we" as Misesean or Rothbardian (especially MI Professors / Speakers) should not use the "war of aggression" (misnomer) as a rational qualifier for why States should push for nullyfication or succession.
Lincoln was not the bad guy -- Southern Debt-Addiciton to prop up a model of economics that can only be supported by ever-bigger central and state gov'ts; it is not possible (in the medium or long run) to support slavery without Unionization. The South chose former Colonial (oppressors) as their Union then pretended (to the 92% of southern white men who did not know better) they wanted to Succede.
This is what I'm saying -- Is that clearer?
Well said Lao
No, you are basically saying Slavery is worse than war (and you indeed justify the Civil War based on your premise that Slavery is worse than war) , you just do not want to admit it because you know by saying that, you violate the whole purpose of the NAP... Like I said, its fine not to address the issues I set up for you because this debate is not going to go anywhere
No I said War is worse (In the Short-Run). Slavery only exists in the medium to long-run; in the short-run slavery is kidnapping and forced labor. You don't become a "slave" until time passes by. Chattel Slavery is one of the worst forms -- Your children are born slaves. Pretty soon slave-mentality becomes so much part of your thinking you cannot comprehend freedom -- this takes generations.
War only lasts as long as you are in it -- It ends as soon as you leave it. Slavery does not end at the end of the day or if you are injured.
Injured soldier goes home. A soldier is "paid" and for the most part knows why he is there.
War is relatively "voluntary" once you agree to participate.
Slavery does not ask for your participation.
While you are at war -- Your wife is not raped nor are your sons sodomized or sold off while you are at war. But when you are a Chattel Slave when you are at work your wife and sons are treated by the whim of their "master."
Slavery is War -- A War against the Mind-Heart-Soul.
War (proper) is a Physical and Economic War -- The only people who truly benefit are the Wealthy and Bankers
---In most wars you a limited tour of duty. Then you are asked if you want to resign or stay on as a reserver. You are "asked"
Your argument slid off your cracker. I can say Slavery is worse than War and NOT say that War fits NAP.
I can put subjective opinion on which is worse and also feel both are contrary to NAP.
You just added that last part in your head.
Show me where I said War does not violate NAP.
Actually there is Just-War-Theory -- There are times when War is the only option -- Haiti won it's independence from slavery by War-Rebellion.
The South could not accept Lincoln's offer (buy-out) because their debt was more than three times what he was offering and they could not continue with slavery without Collusion without a Centralized Military Power. Their must be Collusion. The South chose to collude and "unionize" with Brit and France.
Some intersting tidbits left out of the glorification of the south found prevalent here:
http://www.sethkaller.net/catalogs/41-civil-war/853-confederate-secretary-of-war-ends-martial-law-in-dept-of-west-virginia-
Jefferson Davis also declared martial law in the border states.
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/conscript.htm
The Confederacy conscripted sooner, and in larger numbers than the Union.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm
The Confederacy was no champion of state's rights; specifically when it involved the right of a state to oppose slavery and/or the confederacy.
Why has this become a Civil War debate? The war was not fought in order to free the slaves. You are giving whitey too much credit.
Think instead of gangs or mafias. Small mafias and big mafias. If a shopkeeper is being brutalised by a small mafia, does a big mafia have the obligation to step in? It is a non-question. The only obligation a mafia has is to dissolve itself.
The only question that can be asked is: If the shopkeeper believes that he would be better treated by the big mafia, is it wrong of him to call on the big mafia to step in and take the place of the small mafia? The answer is of course no. It is not wrong. For the sake of his defense he may ask of the big mafia to crack down on the small mafia.
The other question is how wise is it to do so? This is the extent of the libertarian argument for state's rights. In the long term you are almost certainly better off being subject to a small mafia, rather than to a large mafia.
+1,000,000 Business Cycle Points to Marko! You said it perfectly!
Kevin:If an American State, subsidized by Foreign Gov't and Foreign Fed Bankers, violate an American individuals rights to self-rule
No American has any rights. Erase that concept from your mind because it is a false premise. Now, ask the right question, which is "from where does the government get the right to rule anyone?"
I'm trying to use language that is familiar to Rothbardians, so I might be mis-using "rights" as that is a concept I do not believe in. I do not believe you can have a free-society with one person having a "guarantee" or "justificatory 'out'" without having some level of force-agency for them to qualify it too -- even if that force-agency is relatively voluntary.
Big Mafia = Central Gov't
Small Mafia = State Gov't
Big Mafia serve the interests (in part) of Small Mafia
At least in the drug trade.
You are making my point -- thanks.
My point is that pre-Lincoln Small Mafia's (States) maintained as policy the right to own slaves, break treaties, and force-assimilate Indian children (etc etc etc) -- They did this with the full backing of the Big Mafia (central gov't).
So why would Rothbardians and Miseseans talk Succession or Nullyfication?
If we know in modern times that all wars are fought for Supply Chain, Resources, and Cheap Labor (Bill Clinton's plan to move sweat shop labor into Haiti). Why would this not be the case in "olden" times? Maybe none of the wars we've ever witnessed were ever fought without full Collusion -- One batch of Upper 8% Cousins funnin' with another batch of Upper 8's.
---From State to Central Gov't and back again
This is why I am against "harkening" back to a "freer" period -- there was no freer period only for the Upper 8%.
Kevin:DiLorenzo wrote an entire book on Lincoln -- as if Statism and Central banking was created by Lincoln.
Which book are you referring to, and have you read it?
Kevin:The Lincoln bashing is un-necessary if the Mises Institute does not "harken back" -- I mean why that period; why not the periods that led up to it, it's pointless.
Actually, this criticism is pointless. Obviously when doing historical analysis, one has to focus on some point in history. You're making an argument from ignorance.
Kevin:No one was making the 600K Civil War was a "benefit" to liberty type argument which then required the Mises Institute to back the DiLorenzo book
Sure they were. The Straussians were, and the Staussians are the intellectual wing of the neoconservatives. Again, which book are you talking about, and also, you're still making this silly error of either (1) insisting we ignore the past or (2) claiming that a focus on any one period is somehow intellectually dishonest to other periods. Your argument is bunk.
Kevin:Lot's of Mises scholars make "harken" back arguments -- are you serious, please don't ask me to prove it, you must have not been thinking that one through. ---Block talks about Washer Woman "rights" back in the 1840's ---DiLorenzo's Lincoln ---Even Ron Paul talks about the Founders ---I've heard Rockwell do it ---Napolitano I could keep going on -- maybe I misundertood what you meant to say versus what you wrote?
Again, are you saying that we cannot discuss history at all? I agree that empirical arguments are pointless, but haven't you made a point about all sorts of historical wrongs yourself? Aren't you guilty of the very same errors of narration?
Also, just because those guys do it, doesn't mean it is a "Mises" thing. Only someone with the most superficial exposure to Austro-libertarianism would believe those folks represent the leading edge of Misesian and Libertarian thought (no disrespect to Lew Rockwell, who is a hero of mine).
Kevin:So why would Rothbardians and Miseseans talk Succession or Nullyfication? If we know in modern times that all wars are fought for Supply Chain, Resources, and Cheap Labor (Bill Clinton's plan to move sweat shop labor into Haiti). Why would this not be the case in "olden" times? Maybe none of the wars we've ever witnessed were ever fought without full Collusion -- One batch of Upper 8% Cousins funnin' with another batch of Upper 8's. ---From State to Central Gov't and back again This is why I am against "harkening" back to a "freer" period -- there was no freer period only for the Upper 8%.
1. We don't know that "all wars are fought for" any particular reason. You can't know intent. It's an epistemological error to claim otherwise.
2. Your obsession with classes like an arbitrary 8% do nothing to help you make a precise argument. Austro-libertarians are methodological individualists. Name names otherwise you're just making vacuous claims that don't really make a better case than pointing at DiLorenzo and claiming he was being unnecessarily specific.
Kevin:What I was going to ellude to if someone could of answered the question at face value (in the simplistic and conversational terms it was presented) is WHY do "we" as Miseseans or Rothbardians
No offense but you haven't posted one thing in this thread that indicates you are a Misesian or a Rothbardian. On the contrary, you've posted stuff that indicates you're neither.
Kevin:knowing that physical slavery is a far greater evil than "un-just taxation"
They are the same thing. Slavery is slavery. Taxes are slavery.
Kevin:If "we" believe in NAP
You can believe in anything you want, that doesn't make it so. Don't confuse an "ought" with an "is".
Kevin:NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty (in modern language -- zero harkening back -- zero intellectual reparations) are all that is needed.
I have no idea what consumer sovereignty is, it sounds incompatible with property. As far as what is needed, that depends on which audience you're speaking to and what your goals are. Newsflash, not everyone thinks as you do.
Kevin:From our vantage point we only need to see that there was NEVER a period of NAP or Consumer-Soveriegnty prior to Lincoln (owing to or because of Lincoln), so to hang him now when the South (the ruling 8%) were so out of ethics (developing entangling alliances with Former Colonial Powers and Rothschilds) seems like a misguided way to ring in the notion of free-enterprise. Or is it me?
It's you. No one claimed that there was a NAP period. And attacking Lincoln is not defending the south.
Kevin:Doesn't NAP and Consumer-Sovereignty stand on their own?
I'm not sure you understand what the former is, and the latter seems to be some nonsense brought in from the mainstream.
Define consumer sovereignty.
Define the NAP.
Which DiLorenzo book(s) have you read?
We "do" know why modern wars are fought -- For Oil, For Metals, For Oil Piplines, For Supply Chain Profits (to extend the war machine), For Construction, For Debt Profits, For Military Spending, For Militarism -- etc. We "know" this because Misesean Scholars have all written about it, because Mises has written about it, because Rothbard has written about it -- Because Ron Paul and Napolitano talk endlessly about it and because it's obvious to the casual observer.
One can figure this out by observing "spending" and reading Gov't Detailed reports on where it went -- they don't deny it, it's right there.
Are you being funny -- Is this a trick question, hahahaha.
Maybe you are making a more subtle point here, as in "we cannot know what was in Lincoln's head when he made all his decisions," now this I would agree on -- but most Rothbardian Scholars disagree, they will make direct claims; ignoring the obvious facts about Southern Upper 8% debt and tangling foreign alliances with former colonial powers.
The desire to make slavery work blinded them -- it was never a viable business (slavery) it required Big Central Gov't collusion with Small State Gov't who colluded with the Upper 8% (the 8% who owned the slaves) -- it could of never lasted so long in an actual free-society or under Mises' Minarchist Society (which is almost a pure free-society). This is my point -- We (as Miseseans / Rothbardians / Free-Market Thinkers) should not use The South as the poster-child to free-market rebellion; they were in fact the EXACT opposite, they were treasonist against the "principles" of NAP (not that they 'heard' of it or that they cared) and they were treasonist against consumer-sovereignty (owing to state collusion, indebtedness, and tryanical control over 12% of the population). Many other reasons -- you get the idea.
We could win over Gays - Liberals - Women - Workers - and Minorities with some short logical arguments; but no, "we" The Liberty Movements strongest voice (Misesean / Rothbardian Scholars and Liberty Movement Politicians) want to focus on the Civil War and how Lincoln was responsible for 600K deaths and the South was well within their Constitutional Rights to Secede (leaving out all the drippings of course) -- THIS is the winning strategy.
There's more but this will be a lot for you to pick through.
Bumping this because it's basically the same concern I see all the time when discussing libertarian and classical liberal political theory (my thread I created yesterday is about a debate regarding Ron Paul's stance relative to this).
It is frustrating because the answers are clearly there, yet while the responses to OP's question-
If an American State, ... violate an American individuals rights to self-rule (trampling Rothbard's non-aggression principal) would the Central US Gov't have an obligation to step in? Or do State Rights and Sovereignty precede the individuals liberty?
-make clear the ramifications of this consequentialist devil's advocate argument, they fail to provide a recourse for the individuals who have clearly been effected by such local and state depredations on liberty.
Yet the answers are clearly there within the Constitutional framework (I am not referring to ancap; the average person who raises this issue has no care and knowledge of ancap when they obviously have reservations over even classical liberal theory): the citizen's duty to nullify an unconstitutional state law (Texan sodomy law, Kelo etc) just as rightfully as a state's duty to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. Thus citizens suing the state government.
What is unfortunate is that there is a fatalist attitude among many skeptics of this decentralist view, especially from those who have lived in communities that have favored unconstitutional state and local laws (I do not endorse the SC's interpretation of positive rights from such past decisions as Lawrence v Texas, but nonetheless everyone here should detest the reasoning behind anti-sodomy laws).
The skeptics do not see any value in a federalist/decentralized approach since they have been alienated by their state government, they doubt their own ability to influence such laws by challenging them in court and see the federal government as a savior in such cases. In short they conclude with the contradictory position of believing in the futility of the citizen to challenge City Hall or Capital Hall, yet trust in the citizen's ability to influence DC. To them the federal government is more effective as an 'unbiased mediator', and they reason this arbitration crosses state lines and helps 'solve' the flaws of state governments. This is their reasoning, and I do not blame them for taking this viewpoint, despite it being built from false premises, when they have experienced such alienation and isolation from the majority.
This then ends up as it always has: the debate over the 14th Amendment and federalism. I have yet to read Woods' Nullification, but does he cover this concern raised by the OP? Because afaict nobody in this thread has.