> Right now, that is setting up TOR for people longing for unrestricted information, in the past it was smuggling black slaves from the south to Canada.
Could you possibly be more self-serving?
For the record, some libertarians think that slaveholders should have been compensated for the "theft" of their "property" and that buying out slaveholders would have been cheaper, and therefore morally superior, to fighting the civil war. There's an ugly strain of Confederate sympathizing among some outspoken libertarians: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/10/th...
I'm honestly not sure if you are a troll or not. If not, do not start conversations with "Could you possibly be more self-serving?"
Libertarians, by definition, hold liberty to be a fundamental human right. It is incompatible to advocate for slavery.
As for buying out slaves from the South: obviously that would have been cheaper AND morally superior. When States joined the union they agreed to a constitution. When the constitution was changed to end slavery several states left the union. The unionists held onto military property that was physically located in the south. They were the aggressors in the war.
I don't sympathize with the slave holders, I find them abhorrent. But when you have bank loans tied to slave ownership, the impact of legalizing slavery should be handled rationally. The number of lives lost in the civil war could have been avoided.
Lincoln's election was the trigger to the Southern attempt to secede.
Also, I think the assertion that libertarian ideals are had much to do with participation in the Underground Railroad deserves some citation. Participants include free blacks, Native Americans, certain Christian denominations (like Quakers and Wesleyans), and other abolitionists. I don't doubt they share many values with libertarians, but more obvious motivations for each type of participant come to mind than libertarian fervor.
Could you possibly be more self-serving?
For the record, some libertarians think that slaveholders should have been compensated for the "theft" of their "property" and that buying out slaveholders would have been cheaper, and therefore morally superior, to fighting the civil war. There's an ugly strain of Confederate sympathizing among some outspoken libertarians: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/10/th...