National Review has an article on flags and other items whose sale has not been banned by the online marketplaces. The article is at.. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...

Heavily influenced by the Fed.

and when changes in the shape of the box occur,
it's not usually because of innovation, but instead
because of graft and power-seeking. . like Solyndra
and getting rid of the A10 . . . just for votes, dollars
in their pockets, and power. . makes me sick. -- j
.

Ebay bans a huge list of products and services, many of which are perfectly legal and moral. They need competition and lots of it.

Actually the physical non-consentual placement of anything (not just a swastika) on your person does justify the use of comparable force to remove it both morally and legally (an assault has taken place). The non-consensual placement constitutes the initiation of force.

You have the absolute justification and responsibility to defend yourself from physical force, contextually. Meaning if it is intended as hatred toward us, then we know the brand of hatred this represents is violent, can escalate, and we ought to take action against it, fighting it or leaving the scene, whichever puts our life first, objectively. If it is intended as a prank, and we know this, then perhaps only strongly reprimanding and demanding a heartfelt apology from the perpetrator would be required. That said, I personally can not stand the sight of a swastika and I like to recall what happens to the Nazis at the end of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Perhaps this should be taken to its own post, but I am interested in the subject as this obviously not the first occurrence of the theme.
When I tell my son not to initiate force in school, but only to defend himself if attacked, those are definitive, black/white concepts for a 15-yr old. But life is more complicated. What happens when someone places a swastika in my face? Does that justify (not legally, I understand, but morally) physical force?

This was a private corporation making a private decision.

That's part of the Nanny-State. "We know what's good for you even if you don't."

Sorry for the confusion. I misread your use of negatives. My fault. The two examples are the same and the answer to the first question was also no. But again, one ought not to conflate the two concepts of use and initiation. You are not alone in doing so that's for sure. Pacifism, for instance, is based on that conflation in large part.

No one is claiming that slavery was not part of the divide. But it was not only over slavery. As pointed out earlier here, tariffs were a major part, but also the continuing rift between the lifestyles of industrializing North and agricultural South. The fact that Lincoln was elected president without even being on the ballot in several of the Southern states was more oil on the fire. Again, look at it in context - much of the (White) Southern population was very excited about the separation and the forthcoming war - yet most of them did not own slaves. In context, could you picture a majority in Arkansas today happily going to war for the benefit of Wal-Mart?

Interesting, may be true, but does not matter in the context of my statement.

"(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. " - confederate constitution.

Note nothing prevents a law that stops the right of property for a white slave only a negro slave. It is very clear that the south wanted the right to own a negro slave protected very specifically.

"(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. " - Confederate Constitution

Again, only the expansion of Negro slavery was protected. No white slavery protection.

You will note that this was written in April of 1861 a month before the US civil war started. The context in which I brought it up was that it shows without much wiggle room that the south was very concerned with slavery and the attack on it from the north. So much so that they protected Black Slavery constitutionally when they wrote their constitution.

Facts are all that matters, and the context of those facts matter just as much.

Don't quite know what to do with this uncomfortable fact - that Blacks in the South also owned Black slaves. And earlier on, in all the colonies, Whites owned both Black and White slaves. Facts are so damn annoying...

Nazism is a form of socialism, so it is not abhorent to the statists. Confederacy stood for freedom, at least for some of it's citizens, and that is abhorent to the statists.

That is because the use of force, as in almost anything else, could very well be confusing. That is why I try to avoid absolutes. And now you have me confused - why "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second? What is the difference between the two? Aren't they both the same, only varying in the degree?

It's not strictly hypocritical unless they openly oppose Nazism!

Yes as to the first question and no as to the second. In each case the individual who uses force to escape his captors is responding to the force that enslaves him/her. You are confusing the use of force with the initiation of force.

that kinda means that building codes censor
construction, as does zoning . . . and my desire to
build a one-wheeled motorcycle for interstate travel
is censored by the State and the feds. . it's the
damned box which we're in, courtesy of society. -- j
.

I don't understand your reply. You stated "you all" voted. I assumed that meant everyone. Now you say you meant "inclusive of the general public" whatever that means. I am a member of the "general public" I guess which means you are saying I am bound by others' votes. That is true as a matter of power of the government, but please note that does not confer responsibility on me. One good check on "non stop conflict" is the use of a Declaration of War so those representatives claiming the necessity of war have to go on record. The cowards in D.C. have not done this since December 1941. What do you mean by your pronouncement that no one should be allowed to vote "who hasn't earned it"?

Sure, Amazon and eBay have the right to refuse to sell anything they don't like. But, like you said, it reflects their values - and the fact that they sell Nazi flags, especially now that the flag issue has popped up, certainly reflects their values.

So a slave born into slavery, in a society that accepts slavery, would not, in your opinion, have to initiate force to break out of slavery?
How about a person born into a socialist system that requires him to slave for society - would he not be initiating force to break free?
Sure, you can try to make an argument that he is responding to being forced, but the fact of the matter is that it would be the slave who first picks up arms.

I also find it hypocritical that some retailers still sell Nazi flags..

They were to the British, certainly. Today we'd only consider them "enemy combatants", however, as at that time they weren't a part of the official "Continental Army". ;)

BTW I have not been defending the "Stars and Bars".

My issue is the assertion by others on here that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war.