comment by mk

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

comment by mk

mk · 4698 days ago · link · · parent · post: Finland Derides Crisis as Excuse for Eroding Sovereignty

Yes, strange Empire. But, this might be the Dickensian part.

As for the US Civil War. I agree that sovereignity was a component, but only because they wanted to exercise the right of a slave-based economy. It's always about the money. The issue in Europe is all about the money too. NAFTA had similar motivations.

I think instead of 'free market' and 'free trade' we should say unhindered or disregulated. There are probably real consequences that stem from using 'free' that way.

The South wanted the freedom to practice slavery. :/

markup tips · 0

alpha0 · 4698 days ago · link ·

It is almost always about money.

The right to secede was theirs, wasn't it? If yes, the why was their business, legally speaking, and a red herring.

"My paramount object in the struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." - Abraham Lincoln

(What "free"/"unregulated" market? US? You must be kidding me, mk!)

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4698 days ago · link ·

RE: Abe; Abe was a politician. He came into office with a clear anti-slavery agenda as well as a federal one. The heads of the southern economy knew what his election meant, and they seceded. Yes, it was the South's right to secede, and Abe would clearly be a tyrant if his efforts didn't bring freedom to so many, but the reason why the South seceded was first and foremost to preserve their economic model. The fact that they had a political model to defend gave them some sense of justice. The states that seceded first were the cotton states.

(What "free"/"unregulated" market? US? You must be kidding me, mk!)

Oh God no, I don't believe it for a second! That's my point. If the language of NAFTA weren't a "free trade zone" and was instead a "disregulated trade zone", the discussion might be a bit closer to the truth. Of course, maybe "disregulated" isn't even the best term. Maybe "regulated around different priorities".