My opinion and yours obviously differ in this respect. I’m not so much interested in debating who’s right and who’s wrong, although it inevitably seems to come to this when viewpoints clash, as I am in having a friendly yet spirited dialog over different perspectives of the same issue, grounded in mutual respect. This is how we all learn to express ourselves more accurately, to more carefully weigh our words, and hopefully to develop a greater tolerance for points of view that differ from our own.

That being said, with respect to slavery, I have adopted a long term view of the whole issue. I cannot so easily dispense with slavery as the main cause for the Civil War, as many have, because I believe that the economic, political and moral institution of slavery was the first cause that preceded all other causes of the Civil War, in a long chain of cause and effect stretching over thousands of years.

I cannot think of one major economic or political issue of, or moral justification for, the Civil War that was not materially affected by the institution of slavery. Slavery was the original labor saving device for those in power. And with the coming of the industrial revolution, a new and significantly more powerful (and more democratic) labor saving device was coming of age; and slavery was being destroyed everywhere by a higher morality that its economic power made possible. And in the land where the tragic constitutional hypocrisy (that our first principle that “all men are created equal” could co-exist with the institution of slavery) came into being, the war between the tyranny of the past and the potential freedom of the future could no longer be avoided. It was the South’s slave based manual labor economy of the past (i.e. their way of life), versus the science and technology based knowledge economy of the future that was being built in the North.

Past and future are always at war in the present. Most times this war goes on unnoticed, but the process of what Schumpeter called creative destruction moves forward nonetheless. At certain points in time, the schism between past and future grows so great that it cannot be settled without bloodshed. I believe that the Civil War was one of those moments; a moment where two worlds heading in distinctly different directions violently collided. As such, I cannot help but consider states rights, tariffs, public works projects, and the like to be mere symptoms of the underlying cause of the Civil War. And I’ll sum that cause up in one word — slavery.

Is there a source for this? The CSA consitution suggests otherwise, in Article 4, Section 3:

“The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial governmentThe Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government.”

If this was not an implicit claim to US-claimed territory, to what territory did it refer?

Let me address your points.
#1 makes sense
#2 I am sure helping Osama defeat the communist Russians in Afghanistan helped inciting his anger towards Americans. Yes, how dare the evil Americans provoke a harmless innocent man bothering his own business?
#3 Is the most despicable form of blaming the victim. The passengers had no reason to believe that the nature of plane hijacking had changed such that fighting back had become the best option.

You have a far higher chance of being affected personally by a regulation from Obama’s administration (particularly health care) than of even being touched by Al Qaeda.

I rather be affected personally by a regulation from Obama’s administration than by touched by Al Qaeda. How about you? Answer honestly.

And even if he came up with the whole thing and paid for it, who else played a part?

1) The people who trained and flew the planes played a greater part.
2) The Americans in inciting the anger of Osama and all the others who were necessary for his plan (unless you believe the ridiculous notion that they hate us more than the Europeans because we are more free..)
3) The people on the planes by not fighting back (because the government told people for years that they should cooperate with hijackers).

And #2 is very important here, because if everyone had fought on the planes from the beginning probably not one plane would have crashed, much less into anything. These were not skilled fighters with highly efficient weapons. The sophistication of their attacks since has been pathetic at best, but the fear that they promote is effective.

You have a far higher chance of being affected personally by a regulation from Obama’s administration (particularly health care) than of even being touched by Al Qaeda.

Remember, a definition excludes writing paragraphs and only requires a sentence or two (or a few words).

If you do not want to listen to what others have to say give them the opportunity to talk, reduce them to sound bites and then fault them for not taking use of the opportunity given. I will say what I have to. You can take it any way you feel. If you twist my words, you will only make a trap for fools.

Liberty is the highest ideal and should be achieved by any means necessary. (A simpler version-liberty at any cost)

Liberty is the highest ideal. But as for the means I would not use the words “any”. Any means are not the same as effective means.

Henceforth, you would say, it’s ok to deny liberty to some if the goal or outcome provides greater liberty for many. True?

That would be a distortion of my stand. When there are two opponents and one side’s victory is more conducive to liberty than the other, the least you could do is not criticize that side. To actually criticize them in the name of liberty comes across as Orwellian doublethink.

You might also state that those who do not support your definition (liberty at any cost) de facto support tyranny. True?

I use the same definition of liberty as everyone else is. The one that recognizes tyranny to be wrong, terrorism to be wrong and slavery to be wrong; the one that helps me recognize Gaddhafi to be a tyrant; Osama Bin Laden to be a terrorist and the Confederates to be pro-slavery. So when people holding a supposedly libertarian view choose to be silent on the atrocities of Gaddhafi, OBL or the Confederacy while remaining vocal on the shortcomings of their opponent. In the name of liberty, there is defacto support for everything it stands against. I do not have to invent my own definition of liberty to recognize it. I only have to think through the implications arising from the definition of liberty as it is commonly used.

I believe it’s important that people stop and define their beliefs. You have written much on Libya, terrorism, Islam and the Civil War, but I have yet to see a clear definition of your belief system.

If I was to give a definition to your version of liberty, it would read like this:

Liberty is the highest ideal and should be achieved by any means necessary. (A simpler version-liberty at any cost)

Henceforth, you would say, it’s ok to deny liberty to some if the goal or outcome provides greater liberty for many. True?

You might also state that those who do not support your definition (liberty at any cost) de facto support tyranny. True?

I hope you will reply to my interpretation. Remember, a definition excludes writing paragraphs and only requires a sentence or two (or a few words). A yes, no, or an addendum should suffice.

Note:
You are very passionate about liberty, but I am not sure others clearly understand where you are coming from.

It’s important, in the spirit of full disclosure and introspection, that we stand naked (so to speak) and display the essence of our beliefs for all to see; knowing full well, we will be vulnerable to attack but stand steadfast in knowing what we believe is the truth.

It is not that I hoped to change your mind in this one thread. Think of it like a warning on the cigarette carton. You home smokers read it and then smoke I they must. You do not want them to indulge in ignorance.