Re: Help design the ideal Presidential candidate

In article <slrng2hcrh.rmq.wnoise@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
wnoise@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 said:

> Sorry for not being clear.  I was not intending to refer that far
> back.  David Friedman was talking about Alfred Montestruc's
> condemnation of the Union putting down the rebellion, and his
> argument was not based so much on the legality of the splitting,
> which William December Starr was leading into, but the immorality
> of not letting regions split off.  IMO, the analogies made against
> it fail at a legalistic level, rather than a moral level.

Additionally, the "Was it moral?" question is itself affected by
whether the States that wished to secede had earlier voluntarily
entered into an agreement which forbade them from doing so.  That is
to say, the argument that enforcing Rule X on a Party Y is not an
immoral act generally becomes a lot stronger when it can be shown
that Party Y had agreed to be bound _by_ Rule X.  (Which, to repeat
my earlier statement, I _don't_ think can be shown in this case.)

-- wds