Well, no, since Roosevelt purposefully made the Japanese attack.

I can't think of a single justified war since the Civil War, and had Buchanan been remotely competent that one wouldn't have happened either.

While there may be some controversy about the incidents that precipitated our entrance into World War II: Did Roosevelt knowingly allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor to incite the American public?; or even the legitimacy of our involvement in other wars, there will always need to be a provision for national defense.
Even if you look at things from an entirely economic perspective, every member of a society benefits from a strong system of defense. Market stability is often founded on the perceived stability of peace in a region. One of the reasons the American dollar and our commercial markets are considered so reliable is not only the recognition of personal property rights, but also in the government's ability to protect its people and their property. This increases the incentives for enterprising people from all over the world to invest their capital, ideas and effort into our system, thereby improving the quality of life for all member of said society. The converse to this is that nations without a solid defense, instability in government or through military action, are less enticing places for business to flourish.
The duty to defend ones self and ones neighbors is both an individual duty and a social obligation, a contract between fellow men. When someone uses force upon your neighbor, you have the obligation to assist your neighbor in meeting and retaliating the forceful element with either equal or greater force. To quote an appropriate poem by Martin Niemöller, referring to the inaction of Germans during the Nazis rise to power;
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Taking up arms and standing beside your brothers, or paying taxes to support a military, is no different than putting out a fire in your neighbors house, because when your neighbors house is on fire, yours is at risk of being burned down next.
Of course, every person is entitled to stand up for themselves and their rights, hopefully without the need of force or violence. But there are some situations where there are few options but force and violence as a means to restore freedom and liberty to all. Say what you want about the justification for the war in Iraq, it has nothing to do with what I am saying. I believe you as an individual have every right to protest the use of your tax dollars being spent in a way that you dont agree with. If you decided that the use of tax dollars for the war in Iraq is unjustifiable, I believe you have every right to not pay your taxes. You then, however, subject yourself to the consequences of such a decision.
Abortion, on the other hand, has no such important social or commercial significance anywhere near that of the idea of a national defense. The decision to have or not have an abortion is a purely individual issue, and the practice should not be funded by the general public. There really is no way a rational person could ever compare the two.

P.S. Just because Britain was able to abolish slavery without a war doesnt mean that wars fought to end slavery and oppression are without justification, especially when the practice of slavery is based solely on an ignorant racial premise. When one mans freedom is threatened, freedom everywhere is at risk.

so, in an ideal capitalist state whate power does the state have? Only the power to wage war? If that is the case then i must be an anarchist because i don't think the state should have that power unless you can think of someway to limit its abuse
"absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Well, I don't think that providing an adequate national defense is the only function of government in an ideal capitalist society. There are others such as providing an impartial judicial system, maintenance of police forces to protect individuals' physical and property rights, among others. I most certainly belive that all of these government powers need a check against their power. I believe the framers of our constitution felt the same way. The ownership, maintenance and proficiency with private arms is the best means to keep a govenrment in power in check. Granted, citizens can check government power at the ballot box, but how can the citizens enforce the results of the ballot box is they are unarmed? Throughout history dictators have always sought to solidify their power by limiting private gun ownership, or by outlawing it altogether (eg. Castro in Cuba). One of my problems with the current government in our country is the limitations it places on private weapons ownership.

And would you add education into that as well, at least to a basic minimum level?

The Civil War was necessary because of secession. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for the legitimacy of secession in a federal system.

My ideal state serves only to protect the borders and protect citizens from each other (police forces doing what they ought to do), as well as roads that aren't highways - the small ones really can't effectively be privatized.

I recognize that the Civil War was not directly about slavery. I just don't think states, having entered into a federal republic, have the right to leave it.

Really, the only way out of the republic is A)war or B)referendum, like they've been trying up in Quebec - but even that is questionable - it would still require the consent of Congress here in the US.

That said, there certainly is a problem with killing people to keep their states, and I imagine a great part had to do with southern textile/cotton industry and the benefits derived from it that affected the North.

Slavery would be a justification, but even a good number of northerners were not opposed entirely to the concept. It is pretty striking though, that we were pretty much the last civilized country to abolish slavery.

doinki¢arus for Minister of Economics

re: terminology I prefer the term "the american (capitalist) revolution" to civil war, for a host of reasons. thus, the statement "Really, the only way out of the republic is A)war or B)referendum," becomes a)revolution or b)referendum, and you can't actually have a revolution by referendum now, or can you??? I say capitalist revolution because to the best of my knowledge, capitalism is not possible with slavery. By the way, which came first: the French Revolution or English Capitalism? I believe it was English Capitalism, but i could be wrong.

The French Revolution sure as hell wasn't capitalist.

OK Yixiltesiphon, i take your word for it and have deleted the word capitalist (which was parenthesised anyway for a reason)from the reference to the French Revolution.  What was it then, a socialist revolution?  I doubt it...

"All which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil."

http://cornfedcapitalist.blogspot.com/ 

nevetheless, as misguided as it was, it did eventually lead to the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism in France, after a period of pre-facsicm  dictatorship, however deformed and bureaucratic and anti free trade it might be today

Back to the American Civil War...
While yes, the southern colonies/territories originally agreed to unify under a central federal government when they became states and ratified the constitution. That does not, however, supersede their right as living, breathing human beings to choose their form of government. If they feel that the government they have elected is failing to adequately represent them, then they have every right and a near obligation to resolve the issue. They can do this by trying to change the system from within, by going through pre-set channels to reconcile things (eg. passing legislation in Congress, electing new leadership). Or they can simply decide to relinquish the authority that they gave the government in place to govern them and secede and form a new government. Thomas Jefferson himself made allusions to the idea of people dissolving and reforming government to suit their needs. Therefore, all of the states in the Union have every right to secede from the Union. Naturally, the citizens of the seceding states must be dedicated to their ideals, for they will have to face the consequences of secession.
That being said, I don't feel that anyone has the right to place ownership over an individual who did not grant them such authority. It then follows that I believe that Lincoln had the immense responsibility to invade the CSA and free the slaves of the south, even if 1) he wasn't supported by a majority of his constituency; 2) there were other factors for the invasion, such as the loss of agricultural resources, because he was the man with the power to do the right thing. For the same reasons, I believe we had the responsibility to free the oppressed and enslaved people of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. I believe we have the responsibility to support free people everywhere whenever we have the opportunity, because I know I would want the same respect for my life and liberty if I were in such a situation. In truth, war is generally fought for far less noble causes, but this is not always the case. From the times of ancient Greece when Epaminondas led his fellow Thebans into the heart of the mighty Sparta and freed the Helots, to modern day Iraq where we have liberated the Iraqi people. (The war in Iraq is a good example of a conflict with muddied aims. The Iraqi people have been liberated and it is time to turn their country back over to them.) There is much more to do all around the globe. I am not saying that America should be the worlds police; I am just saying that I value freedom and liberty, and I believe that freedom and liberty are universal. Of course, in some countries, people have chosen to be oppressed, like the modern French and Australians, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of the choices they have made.
I guess my point is simply that war and violence, while they are hopefully last resort solutions to problems, are always justified when carried out in the name of freedom.

Wow - that was an extremely eloquent argument for wars and suitably qualified, I think, assuming that the war in Iraq was not really just about WMD. What is your point about the modern French and Australians? - I don't get it.

That the people of modern France and Australia desire to have a Socialist government, they demand a welfare state, and they should be left to suffer the consequences of their decisions. I don't think that we have any business going anywhere and 'saving' people from governments that rule by consent. Even when many politicians in leadership positions in France have recognized the necessity start taking baby steps away from a welfare state, the people of France won't allow them to. A lot of France is supported by the fact that a few of its great corporations make so much money around the globe (ie. Vivendi Universal), enabling them to buoy the sinking ship of state.

What I was saying is that I supported our military involvement in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his brutally oppressive government. Before the invasion the people had little means to resist his totalitarian rule, but many did none the less, and many suffered greatly for their opposition to his rule. The Sociology of totalitarian regimes is really complex and also very interesting. By far, the most monitored peoples of any modern government were the citizens of East Germany prior to the destruction of the Berlin Wall. The Stasi had large networks of spies and informants, with 91,000 full-time employees and around 300,000 informants, meaning that about one in every 50 East Germans worked for or with the Stasi. Really this comes down to neighbors telling on neighbors, family-members telling on other family-members; basically, people who were probably themselves very opposed and very afraid of the East German government were also willing to work to support their authority, because the form of their oppression was such that there was little they could do to resist. Many did endure the hardships and risks of escape, others sabatoged government projects and programs. But all in all, the people, while hating the government in their hearts, supported the government with their bodies. I believe that situations like this warrant intervention from outsiders. When I say I support U.S. military involvement somewhere, I am not so much saying that I believe in the U.S. government taking action; but rather that I believe that we individual Americans are free to lend our resources as individuals or as a group or as a nation (to include our military power) to support other people who desire it.
Regarding your joke about freeing Australians from themselves, I don't believe that just because they didn't vote to become an independent soveriegn nation that they don't want to become one. But it certainly could be sighted as an indicator that they don't. Obviously, I am not aware of how the referrendum was worded, and therefore I am unable to take a position on its legitimacy. But I do believe that if the English were imposing colonial rule and if the Australians were solidified in their efforts to end the imperial rule of the English, that I would be in favor of supporting the revolutionaries.
To answer another part of your question I do believe that the U.S. declared many reasons for going to war in Iraq, from the threat of a hostile regime with WMDs, to Iraq's support of Global Terrorism and the overthrow of a totalitarian regime. While I am against terrorism in most cases, and I don't like the idea of people who don't like me because of my nationality having nuclear and/or biological weapons, I believe that those jsutifications fall far short in comparison to the restoration of freedom to our fellow men, even if those fellow men choose in their new found freedom to hate me.
I have to leave now, but feel free to comment and I will add more later.

Thanks Charles,nice to know that you would support a movement in Australia, if the people could be bothered getting off their arses to do anything about it. Here in Belgium, there is a huge movement for Flemish independance, they are anti-euorocratic and want to secede from Belgium. They are, incidentally, completely anti-immigration, fearing the "muslimisation" of Europe which they feel is the goal of the EU. It would not be sensible for USA to intervene in this dispute, at the moment. What do you think of the idea as expressed on this website of Americans forming militias to intervene in disputes that they wish to support, as an alternative to Government initiated military action? My biggest problem with that would be that they would be labelled as "CIA mercenaries" even if the CIA had nothing to do with them.

I know it is early on a Sunday but this is hot off the press in Australia at the moment - thought you might like to see what passes for news there...
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=92527

Just to be clear, I support foreign involvement in other country's affairs only when it is needed. So if the Flemish are able to resolve their own issues, or if they are strong enough to provide themselves with independence then there would be no justification for intervention.
I do support the idea of citizen militias. It is the utmost responsibility of every individual to protect their own freedom and liberty. I believe it is more than just wise, it is also prudent and practical for all people to own and maintain weapons in their homes and on their person, and for them to be trained to use them responsibly.
With regards to civilian militias intervening in the affairs of other nations, I think there are a few issues to take note of.
First, if you believe that a government is a representative of its people, then it follows that the military of that government is an extension of that representation. So when the U.S. Army invades another country, they are doing on behalf of the American people. So we as Americans are able to exert military influence into other countries this way. I also do not believe, as some do, in dissolving the military in favor of localized militias. While I am an opponent to an overbearing centralized government, I do believe one of the reasons America has enjoyed such a stable peace within our borders is the projection of our military strength as a whole. No other government is able to surpass us in military power because we Americans have pooled our resources to provide for an outstanding national defense. I simply do not believe that local militias would have the resources to be that effective.
There is also the issue of universal right. If you are a proponent of inalienable or unalienable rights then you believe that there is some sense of universal endowment of rights, and at least a basic universal moral premise to support those rights. It is therefore the duty of all people to uphold this moral premise to the best of their ability at all times in everything that they do, whether they are at work, driving in public or serving in a citizen's militia. The leaders of the militias would have to exercise great judgment to decide just where and how the militia should operate, and what the consequences of their operation are to themselves and others. There will always be a fine line dividing freedom fighters and terrorists; it usually depends on what side you are on as to who is which. But terrorists are militias that don't recognize the inalienable rights of others. When the hijackers of September 11th killed Americans, they did it in their fight against what they saw as a modern day form of colonial imperialism. While I have no problem with people fighting the powers they believe to be evil, the determination of what powers are evil will stem from no other place than you own moral compass. These same people supported an authoritarian regime of theocrats who trampled on the liberties of their own people. The Taliban were actually a minority in Afghanistan, they just happened to be in possession of a great deal of modern weaponry when Russia withdrew their forces, and they simply filled the power vacuum. These people who attacked America, did so without recognizing the universal rights to individual liberty and freedom that we hold so dear and important. Rather than trying to liberate people from a tyrannical rule, they seek to subjugate the entire world under Islamic authority. This is a case where I would not support the aims of their militia, but I definitely agree that they have a right to form one, and I have a right to see it destroyed. The article you referenced is an example of armed groups trying to push their agendas on others. This is the reason there is so much sectarian violence in Iraq, because too many people over there have no concept of freedom and liberty.
As far as the concern about militias being labeled CIA mercenaries, I really see that as a non-issue. Just because people think something is true, doesn't make it so, and we shouldn't have to tailor our actions to support their illusions.

I can only assume you are talking about Hans Van Themsche and his racially motivated shooting in May, right? I think it is terrible that someone would use a firearm in such an irresponsible way. I have always been and will always be an advocate of RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. It is sad that Belgium will use the incident to further limitations on private weapons acquisition and ownership. It is also unfortunate that incidents like this one only help fuel the arguments, however irrational, of anti-gun advocates. For years people have been using vehicles irresponsibly, often killing many innocent people. Vehicles have even been used as weapons of hate, with racial motivations and the intent to kill. Just look at what happened at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill when Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove a rented SUV into a crowd of students on March 3. Vehicles have been used to kill far more people in peacetime than guns ever have, but you don't hear about governments trying to limit citizen's access to cars (of course there probably are some extreme examples). There is of course the retort that vehicles offer society a productive purpose, whereas firearms have no positive purpose and are designed entirely for destruction and the killing of life and there is therefore no comparison. Naturally, I don't buy that for a few reasons. One, firearms have been used for many productive purposes: as a tool to hunt with for food, especially in places where a structured food supply system is not in place; they have been used as protection for families against attacks from wild animals and are still used for this purpose in places; and they have been used as a great form of responsible recreation, from target and clay shooting to biathlons and other events. Firearms are also important for their destructive and life taking capabilities. Firearms have been invented and introduced to society; we can't turn back the clock and undo this part of our history. Because firearms have been made available, there will always be weak people, seeking to reap the rewards of someone else's ability through the barrel of a gun. These people will find ways to arm themselves in spite of laws and legislation. Because of this, and because I believe people have the right to protect their lives, I believe that responsible citizens should be afforded every opportunity to own firearms.
I also assure you that if the people Themsche was shooting at, and the people Taheri-azar was trying to run over were armed, not only would the two criminals have thought more deeply about the possible consequences of their actions, possibly preventing the incidents altogether. But even if they weren't stopped by the fear of armed citizens, the victims would have been ready to fight back against the criminals and they would have at least have had the opportunity to protect their right to life.
And legal gun ownership would also provide the Flemish the opportunity to solidify their intentions to secede from the rest of Belgium if they so desired. Admittedly, I dont understand the politics or culture of Belgium, but I do believe that people have the right to grant and withdraw their consent for government at anytime as they choose.

Who the hell was Joe? Joe was an unarmed guy who was asked for his mp3 player in the middle of a crowded train station in Brussels. He said no and was knifed to death as a reward for his bravery. Perhaps if he (or anyone watching helplessly) was armed, he would be a living hero and not a dead martyr. The following comes from http://dof.skynetblogs.be :

 "Joe the Hero

Is Rome worth one good man's life? We believed it once. Make us believe it again. The powers that be and the media that support them want to sell to us the story that the death of Joe was "senseless". Nothing could be further from the truth. With a government that not only has abdicated its responsibilities, but even has no qualms admitting it has done so, we as private citizens are the last bastions against anarchy. "When you pay the DaneGeld, all you get is more Danes", so Joe decided not to pay. We should all be Joes. Because if we are not, we are deserving of the consequences."

Feel free to enter the Dog of Flanders' JVH memorial contest for a suitable t-shirt caption - the best entry in my opinion so far has been: "Please don't ask for my mp3 player as being called a motherfucker often offends"