The Real Problem with the US Pledge of Allegiance

[Zack]

rights are equal and they are superior moral claims that dont depend on what a law says

That is vague enough to apply to practically anything imaginable.

 

[Zelig]

rights are equal and they are superior moral claims that dont depend on what a law says

It absolutely depends, if you can't enforce secession by force.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No its still a right, its just that if you can't defend yourself by force, someone will commit unethical crimes anyway.

 

[Zack]

How dare they end slavery, how unethical of them.

 

[useless]

You're out of your element, Dommy.

Didn't you know Zack, not all slaves were abused! This therefor makes slavery okay or something

logic or a thing

 

[Zelig]

No its still a right, its just that if you can't defend yourself by force, someone will commit unethical crimes anyway.

You can't unilaterally give yourself rights that nobody else agrees with.

 

[Berzerker]

That is vague enough to apply to practically anything imaginable.

of course, how else do you decide when someone has the more valid claim? Thats what a right is, the morally superior claim.

It absolutely depends, if you can't enforce secession by force.

Rights are based on morality, not force... whether or not the south had the right to secede, slaves also had the right to secede - from slavery. Their human rights were violated, but it was legal to violate their rights.

You can't unilaterally give yourself rights that nobody else agrees with.

Dont matter if anyone agrees, either you or they are correct - and if you are correct, it doesn't matter if the majority says otherwise - you have the morally superior claim

 

[Zelig]

of course, how else do you decide when someone has the more valid claim? Thats what a right is, the morally superior claim.



Rights are based on morality, not force... whether or not the south had the right to secede, slaves also had the right to secede - from slavery. Their human rights were violated, but it was legal to violate their rights.



Dont matter if anyone agrees, either you or they are correct - and if you are correct, it doesn't matter if the majority says otherwise - you have the morally superior claim

I'm not a moral absolutist.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How dare they end slavery, how unethical of them.

You're out of your element, Dommy.

Didn't you know Zack, not all slaves were abused! This therefor makes slavery okay or something

logic or a thing

I guess that depends on how you define "Abuse". I think its fair to say that holding someone against their will is certainly a form of abuse (Although "Kidnapping" is a more common term for it.) Of course, the end of the war proved that some slaves did want to stay where they are, at least compared to their other real options. But that does not excuse the ones who were held there by force who wanted to leave, nevermind any other abuse that may have occurred.

But to argue that all slaves were beaten or physically abused is simply not true.

That's really besides the point though since the Lincolnian invasion was never about the slaves. Even if they were executing every black person, the Union still would have no right to invade with the intent of "Preserving the Union." Perhaps to save the people under oppression, but even then, they would have to let the South secede after freeing the people from oppression.

And Berzerker is certainly correct that it was appropriate for slaves to secede from slavery. That doesn't excuse Lincolnian "Preserve the Union" tyranny.

 

[Lord of Elves]

That doesn't excuse Lincolnian "Preserve the Union" tyranny.

Those poor slaveholders. Lincoln sure was a bad, bad man for not letting them oppress other people in peace

 

[GhostWriter16]

Those poor slaveholders. Lincoln sure was a bad, bad man for not letting them oppress other people in peace

At least don't strawman my position. Lincoln's tyranny is not because he freed the slaves.

The fact that he started a war, his suspensions of habeus corpus, his restrictions on freedom of speech, acts of terror like Sherman's March (Which predominantly affected non-slaveholders), martial law against secessionists in Maryland, and, this is perhaps the strongest point, that he was willing to let Southerners keep their slaves as long as they stayed in the Union. Lincoln didn't even care if Southerners infringed on the rigthts of slaves, as long as they stayed under the umbrella of his empire.

Of course, as an authoritarian I expect you will like Lincoln. Any anti-secessionist, nationalist, neo-con, or authoritairna would. But there is no libertarian defense of Lincoln. To anyone who values liberty, Lincoln was a tyrant.

 

[Lord of Elves]

To anyone who values liberty, Lincoln was a tyrant.

I guess the freedom of the millions of African-Americans he liberated from slavery is irrelevant.

 

[Zack]

Oh look, the guy with the CSA flag as his avatar is preaching to us about liberty. You're a goddamn hypocrite.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The CSA was better than St. Abraham.

@LOE- You keep missing the point. LINCOLN DIDN'T FIGHT TO FREE THE SLAVES

Lincoln's war was in order to turn the American voluntary union into an involuntary nationalistic empire. THAT is why he went to war. Thus, he is a tyrant.

 

[Lord of Elves]

The CSA was better than St. Abraham.

I'd go so far to say that the only regimes which are comparable to the CSA in moral bankruptcy are Nazi Germany and friends, also the USSR of Stalin's purges, the German forced relocation and the Ukrainian genocides.

@LOE- You keep missing the point. LINCOLN DIDN'T FIGHT TO FREE THE SLAVES

Lincoln's war was in order to turn the American voluntary union into an involuntary nationalistic empire. THAT is why he went to war. Thus, he is a tyrant.

Yes, yes I realize you have this narrative you insist upon about Lincoln being some kind of Latin American-style caudillo forcing everyone into his awful dictatorship, but really the only people who didn't want to be a part of the Union were the rich, slave-holding aristocrats who would have preferred to remain in the Union were it possible to keep their slaves. Lincoln fought to free the slaves; there wouldn't have been a war if he wasn't interested in abolishing slavery.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hay cybrx this Buddhism discussion is so much more interesting than CSA Round #3239, yeah?

Lol, you're right on that. That stereotype still annoys me a bit sometimes, though. (I remember one time in Middle School a girl was doing a presentation on Buddhism and she said something like "In India, Buddhas look normal but in China Buddhas are drawn as fat" and I wanted to facepalm myself)

It's what I say to people sometimes when I can't be bothered to discuss the complexity of Buddhist representations and just end the discussion with a simple overgeneralisation.

Anyhow, I remember when I was saying it in elementary school I just imagined the Buddha looking over all of America while the American flag was waving behind him... which kind of looks surreal now, come to think of it.

Is the image of a Middle Eastern tribal war god looking over America any less surreal though.

Personally, since the monotheistic God is the supreme arbiter of all creation, I'd replace "under God" with "under karma".

 

[Lord of Elves]

Hay cybrx this Buddhism discussion is so much more interesting than CSA Round #3239, yeah?

Can I just register that I don't understand why we have to have this debate? The men behind the creation of the CSA were just objectively bad people on the count of slavery and their willingness to kill thousands of people in a war to maintain it, misguided at best, pure evil at worst. And by comparison, yes, Lincoln sort of looks like an arbiter of peace, truth and justice.

You all don't seem to get it, slavery is bad mmkay, and as far as I'm concerned pretty much any measures are worth taking to end it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd go so far to say that the only regimes which are comparable to the CSA in moral bankruptcy are Nazi Germany and friends, also the USSR of Stalin's purges, the German forced relocation and the Ukrainian genocides.

Then you are delusional.

Seriously, you are comparing the Confederacy to Nazi Germany? I will remind you that I never compared Lincoln to Hitler, even if the word "Tyrant" is accurate to describe both. Lincoln was a fairly ordinary tyrant as far as it goes, while Hitler was pretty truly exceptional.

If you seriously claim that the CSA was as bad as Nazi Germany, you aren't worth talking to because you are an absolute moron.

Yes, yes I realize you have this narrative you insist upon about Lincoln being some kind of Latin American-style caudillo forcing everyone into his awful dictatorship, but really the only people who didn't want to be a part of the Union were the rich, slave-holding aristocrats who would have preferred to remain in the Union were it possible to keep their slaves. Lincoln fought to free the slaves; there wouldn't have been a war if he wasn't interested in abolishing slavery.

Lincoln wanted to prevent the spread of slavery because it would have created more states that would have voted for Southern democrats and more importantly it would have required those states to actually let black people live there. Now, I'm not really going to argue with you if you think exclusion of a race from a given territory is better than enslaving them, I might agree, but the reality is that Lincoln's reasoning for opposing slavery was every bit as racist as the Southern AND NORTHERN aristocrats who held slaves.

It is the height of hypocricy to wage war against someone for doing something you do yourself.

Lincoln described his politics in the 1830's, it had everything to do with evil protectionist tariffs, the national bank, and the internal improvements system, but nothing to do with slavery.

Do you really think that if the CSA wanted to free its slaves and be allowed to leave the Union that Lincoln would have allowed it?

Lincoln was never going to free the slaves in the South until they seceded, and when he did it was punishment for secession, not out of desire to help the slaves.

Not that I really care about that, if he freed them, he freed them, but his war was unethical, and both tyrannical in and of itself and giving him an excuse to be more tyrannical both at home and in captured confederate territory.

Can I just register that I don't understand why we have to have this debate? The men behind the creation of the CSA were just objectively bad people on the count of slavery and their willingness to kill thousands of people in a war to maintain it, misguided at best, pure evil at worst. And by comparison, yes, Lincoln sort of looks like an arbiter of peace, truth and justice.

You all don't seem to get it, slavery is bad mmkay, and as far as I'm concerned pretty much any measures are worth taking to end it.

Yes, slavery is bad. That hardly means that war is acceptable, nor does it mean that stopping secession is acceptable, or that suspension of habeus corpus is acceptable, or the arrest of secessionist congressmen, and... the SOUTH were the ones committing murder? Just shut up now. You're the one who wants to murder people for seceding and to murder people in foreign countries for your neoconservative paradise. The CSA were defending their homes, families, and land from Lincolnian aggression.

Lincoln an arbiter of peace?

Relevant:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson6.html

 

[Tee Kay]

Eh, if the vast majority of scholars are wrong, and Lincoln was really having us on and he really was the evil person Some People claimed he was, then he's probably being reincarnated as a newt as we speak, and for the next thousand lifetimes or so. So why get all frothy at the mouth?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Eh, if the vast majority of scholars are wrong, and Lincoln was really having us on and he really was the evil person Some People claimed he was, then he's probably being reincarnated as a newt as we speak, and for the next thousand lifetimes or so. So why get all frothy at the mouth?

Actually, assuming we are relying on Buddhist scripture here, I believe that he should be reborn in one of the hellish realms for his anger and tyranny. Or, if we are to believe he is greedy, then he is being reborn as a so-called "hungry ghost", forever (well, at least until he gets reborn) roaming the world searching for something to fulfill his neverending thirst and hunger. Or maybe he's in that one hell realm where you continuously get suffocated by falling stacks of books and papers (because he betrayed the founding documents of America?)