Articles NewsFlow La Cote de l’or et de l’argent Market Briefing

Recevez notre Marketbriefing

Hart
Membre depuis mai 2012
283 commentaires - suivi par 1 personne

1 abonnées

A laissé un commentaire sur l'article :

Freedom and Federalism

- Tom DiLorenzo -

The idea of secession, as referenced when talking about the civil war is one thing but you keep tying it to the abolition of slavery and Lincolns part in that action. How many times do you need to read it that Lincoln simply didn’t give a gosh darn about slaves. His only motivation in starting the civil war was money and the control thereof. Yes that’s right, I said it again, Lincoln started the civil war.

Let’s draw a comparison here. If I was to continually work day and night to destroy your ability to earn an income and thereby your lifestyle but never physically harm you, and you knew I was the one destroying your life, at what point would you come up to me and use physical force in an effort to dissuade me from further aggressive action? Would you need to be reduced to living in and abandoned building, living on the street, or how about a sewer? What if I was able to limit your movement, made sure your bank account was drained, removed your ability to communicate with family and friends? How about if I interceded with and stopped every attempt to help you? What would be enough to make you take action? The people of the South new where the line was drawn when the north relentlessly went after the South’s ability to continue the pursuit of commerce. This is such a simplistic and effective means to remain innocent and have your opponent take on the role of the aggressor that school children everywhere use the tactic all the time. Yet you and so many others used the fact that the South fired the first shot as a valid reason to declare war. You simply need to grow up and look at the world through the eye's of an unbiased grown up.

There is much in history that shows Lincoln was opposed to any effort which would eliminate slavery. He married into a high profile slave owning family and like any politician, he changed his story to suit the audience he was addressing when slavery was brought up.

Yes Abe Lincoln was a politician through and through that didn’t give a rats fuzzy behind whether slavery was eliminated or not.

Can’t change history Jim C.

As for secession, well who’s to say that the world is any better off now than if the south would have seceded? Slavery in the south would have come to an end just as it has in many other countries. I have yet to see anything that proves the world is a better place with a united USA. Much can be said on the topic of how this united USA is in fact a bad thing. Should we all be part of clans warring all the time? No but this would not have been the outcome if the South seceded. Should states have more power, yes. Should they be able to secede from this crazed federal system, yes. Would this bring an end to the world the way we know it, no.

You live within the US do you not? Why do you not live in Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China, or Yemen? I’ll take a stab at it and say that it’s because you don’t like the way the countries are run. So what’s the difference then between not wanting to live in these countries and a state full of people who don’t want to live under the United States insane rulers? If the greater proportion of the people in a state agree on the matter then let them secede. Will they make it on their own or not, no idea but they deserve the right to try rather than be dictated to by psychopaths in Washington.

If you don’t think it’s possible for states to secede and stay alive, do a little reading on Europe’s history. As the greater whole, modern Europe is the result of exactly what we’re talking about here.

Commenté il y a 4111 jours

envoyer

Début de l'article :The idea of states' rights is most closely associated with the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and his political heirs. Jefferson himself never entertained the idea that "states have rights," as some of the less educated critics of the idea have claimed. Of course "states" don't have rights. The essence of Jefferson's idea is that if the people are to be the masters rather than the servants of their own government, then they must have some vehicle with which to control that government. That vehicle, in the Jeffersonian tradition, is political... Lire la suite

Répondre à ce commentaire

Vous devez être connecté pour commenter un article

8000 caractères max.

connectez-vous ou inscrivez-vous

	Nos flux RSS		24hGold Mobile
	Gold Data Center		Convertisseur Or Argent
	Pièces d'or sur eBay		Pièces d'argent sur eBay
	Minières : outils techniques		Minières : outils d'analyse fondamentale