Re: Help design the ideal Presidential candidate

On 2008-05-13, William December Starr <wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.)

Yes, and I reductioed that for this particular case to absurdums in
a couple of directions, which leaves only the legal differences.  I
also think Nate Edel's analysis on the legalities is a little bit more
substantive than yours.

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-