Yesterday, 05:40 PM
I don't think that's entirely fair or accurate.
Human chattel slavery is an abomination, and is among the most grotesque and egregious violations of libertarian principles (in both theory and practice).
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is not a Non-Violence Principle - and when and where appropriate, defensive or retaliatory violence, up to and including deadly force, is permissible under (and even endorsed by) the NAP. It is thus entirely justifiable under libertarian principles to use violence to put an end to things such as human chattel slavery (or any other initiatory abrogations of human liberty).
A war on the southern states (or anyone else) for the purpose of ending human chattel slavery is not by itself objectionable on libertarian grounds (though perhaps it might be on other, prudential grounds, contingent upon circumstances). Unfortunately, the defense and preservation of human liberty was not at all the motivation of Lincoln, et al. in their persecution of the Confederates (although the abolishment of human chattel slavery did occur incidentally to that persecution). That the (true) abolitionists advocated violence against slavers is not at all objectionable from a genuinely libertarian perspective. However, insofar as any of them advocated for coercively aggressive means to achieve that violence (for example, by hypocritically supporting the implementation of military drafts, which are just another form of human chattel slavery), they were indeed in the wrong.
Connect With Us