Convincing a libertarian that the war cannot be justified

A friend and I both wrote opposing pieces for a little blog I run (with various viewpoints on it), we're both libertarians, he almost to an anarchist bent (I essentially am one) but he refuses to condede that the war was, in the end, unjustified. He is no fan of Lincoln, does not believe his atrocities were "worth it' to save the union, but they were "worth it" only because slavery was ended IN THE PROCESS.

Here's the two little articles he wrote on it:

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/06/10/lincoln-davis-and-the-necessary-war/

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/06/11/the-problem-of-speculation/

I've tried countering his arguments (he linked to my article in one of those) and more, using largely Walter Block's arguments found here.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block15.html

Any suggestions on where to go at this point? He is a reasonable guy, I am convinced that he can be convinced if I can only show him the right line of thinking and show him how he's wrong, at that point, he would change his mind.

Is he a utilitarian? Because if he comes to libertarianism from the starting point of rational ethics, it's not hard. That principle requires one to accept that the ends do not justify the means. The ends must be justified in and of themselves, or it is still unjust.

Try this analogy: what if I shot a bullet through an innocent man's head, and it kept going and struck and stopped a man in the act of burglary? Does that make the act of my volition any less a murder? That's absurd.

It's simple logic: If A does not equal B, A CANNOT equal B. A cannot become B unless A's nature is altered fundamentally so that it becomes B.Injustice is not made just simply because a side affect of it can be considered just. The action itself must be just.

And even if I had been aiming for the burglar and hit the innocent man, I would still be responsible for the unjust death of the innocent man.

Taking it on from a utilitarian perspective, the fallacy of the broken window applies here. The war killed hundreds of thousands, destroyed vast amounts of wealth, and as an unintended consequence, slavery was ended. But it was completely possible (likely, in fact) for slavery to have ended without those losses. From this perspective, too, Lincoln's war fails to find justification.

 Well, the fact remains that slavery is a state enforced institution, it is not something that can arise or even exist in anarchy. So, in that viewpoint, a far better route would've been for the abolishment of the union along with state governments. But of course no government official would ever abolish the government.

krazy kaju:

 Well, the fact remains that slavery is a state enforced institution, it is not something that can arise or even exist in anarchy.

This sentence does not make much sense. You can either define anarchy as a social system without monopoly of coercion, and you can judge anarchy as a social system from this point of view; or you can define anarchy as the never-never-land of the principle of non-aggression, where murder, theft and slavery cannot occur by definition. The latter definition is irrelevant, because it is wishful thinking. The former is perfectly compatible with every conceivable crime: the real problem is to show whether or not the resulting society were more or less prone to crimes. In analyzing society, no one should confuse facts with values: without this distinction, reason cannot be applied in understanding reality.

Libertyfirst:

 the real problem is to show whether or not the resulting society were more or less prone to crimes.

I do not think  so  because following Molyneux : freedom can never be won by arguing for efficiency.

We should ,I think,  focus on  the Natural rights: non pacific  means take place when  you get out of engaging in argumentation.

War  is an indiscriminate  act  therefore unjustifiable by argumentation

The question needs to be asked was the war neccessary to end slavery? The answer is of course no, Lincoln could have repealed the fugitive slave act or literaly paid for their freedom.

Also bear in mind the proponents of any government action are quick to point out the benefits of the application of force - but they never seem to think about the unintended consequences of the act.

The slaves were freed but the economy they were free to work in had been devestated by war - I have seen one study which concluded that blacks were materially poorer as a result. The injustices of reconstruction meant terrorism by the KKK (as blacks were the voters who were keeping the carpet bagging Republicans in power) and a bitter legacy which would ultimately strengthen Jim Crow laws.

I would also whilst the war for southern independence was legitimate whether or not they owned slaves, it was because the confederacy tolerated slavery that it was ultimately defeated. The north was able to manipulate public opinion in the North and overseas by the slavery issue to stifle criticism of what would otherwise be seen an act of colonial barbarism. i.e. its easy to swing public opinion into invading Iraq than Switzerland.

spirit66:

I do not think  so  because following Molyneux : freedom can never be won by arguing for efficiency.

Well, I happen to think he's wrong. Most statists are just economically ignorant as opposed to evil. Most of them agree that stealing is wrong but believe the ends (helping the weak, poor etc.) justifies the means.

It is far more difficult to convince them that stealing is wrong all the time than it is that getting rid of government is the best way to acheive their goals.