Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:18 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
So it seems many libertarians just hate the government because it takes away their freedom. It sounds like they want to go back to the 1920s or 30s with a laissez faire method of governing. But, my issue with that is fairly obvious. If it's not the government taking away your freedom, then it's going to be the robber baron who owns the factory you work and live in. So is this what libertarians want? Would they rather have their freedom trampled on by those more powerful than them with 0 influence, and no checks and balances on them? In a libertarian society, I would just trample all over my neighbors because I have more money, and firepower than them. Maybe I'm just naive and humans actually aren't greedy. It's probably all just a fabrication or over exaggeration right? No way someone is going to take away my freedom if theres no government, right?
You realize governments are made of people right? What happens when the state gets too much power? Things like Hitlerís Germany and Stalinís USSR become vastly more dangerous to humanity than things like PepsiCo.
  #52  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:31 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Oh you misread. I said it was ended peacefully. It was. Especially compared to the carnage you think was necessary for some deeply ideological or psychological reason.
Thatíll earn you a warning, Will. Do not insult other posters outside the Pit.
  #53  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:58 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You realize governments are made of people right? What happens when the state gets too much power? Things like Hitlerís Germany and Stalinís USSR become vastly more dangerous to humanity than things like PepsiCo.
Banana republics are a thing.

Also there are ways to prevent a democracy from falling apart. Ensure a certain standard of living, address income inequality, ensure checks and balances to keep democracy stable, etc. If nations had this then the nazi & soviet revolutions would not have happened. These revolution happen in desperate nations with weak governments.

Getting rid of government is not the only, or even the best way to address authoritarianism. Better ways are building stable democracies with checks and balances, creating an involved middle class, building a social safety net, economic growth, etc.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #54  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:01 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
That happened literally nowhere, but cool story.
As already noted, Britain abolished slavery in 1833, not just in Britain, but throughout the British colonies. Prior to that, however, what was then Upper Canada passed an act in 1793 to limit slavery, and subsequently, court decisions later in that century and in the early 1800s effectively ended slavery altogether through a combination of legislation and case law, enforced by government. IOW, slavery was ended by force of law, the libertarian's nightmare. So your statement was ludicrously wrong, just like every single other thing you've said throughout this thread. Others are doing a fine job of disproving all the other incorrect statements, I just thought I'd clarify that one a bit further. Cite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Make your claim. Thatís how this works.
WTF does that even mean?
  #55  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:05 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Banana republics are a thing.
I believe even banana republics are a big step up from feudalism. Much like feudalism was a big step up from chaos.

And functional democracies a step up from feudalism. Best option we've found for strong individual liberties is a big democratic government.
  #56  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:06 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
That's not very basic, and presupposes a framework of ownership. Who determines the proper ownership of property, and the time at which it's established and where changing ownership by taking becomes 'stealing'?
Ok we can get more basic. Do you reject self-ownership, or should I prove self-ownership before proceeding with the rest?


Quote:
Most of the land in the US was seized by force from its original inhabitants and a large portion of it worked by slave labor. For that that wasn't worked by slave labor, the majority of it was worked by using seized wealth and the threat of either direct government violence or government approved violence. The story is similar in Europe, though the history of seizure runs back longer. I've never heard a good libertarian explanation of why people who own huge amounts of land seized from it's original owners, money made by forcing people to work at gun/sword point, and the like should be considered legitimate property owners, but the 'don't steal' admonition seems to apply to them.
Libertarian do believe it applies to those thieves and heirs to thieves. We simply believe that these claims should be proven on an individual basis. Collectively calling Euro-Americans thieves and forcing reparations to Native Americans would be incorrect. The proper course would be for a Native American to dispute specific property ownership of a Euro-American (or African-American etc.).

This is not a secret. Mr. Libertarian Murray Rothbard believed that a plantation should have been given to the enslaved workers of that land. Perhaps there is some disinformation floating around about Libertarians. Seems like all anybody has read is Ayn Rand.

Quote:
That means that what Libertarians are saying is "The stuff I stole is mine now, but don't do any further stealing, and that includes taking back what I stole from you, or things that I bought with money I stole in the first place."
No libertarians believe that.

Quote:
Similarly, does it count as 'stealing' if I operate a factory and use your land to dispose of my waste by polluting it? But how does one address this stealing without things like broad anti-pollution laws, as the harm from pollution tends to involve an accumulation of small, distributed, long-term damage, not something easily addressed by an individual within their lifetime. (And especially by an individual before irreprable harm happens). I've never seen a good Libertarian solution to this issue, and the general comments from Libertarians on issues like secondhand smoke run contrary to their being one.
This is a complicated issue but in brief, law is in shambles because it has been monopolized by the state. There is no adequate recognition of property rights. If there were, all unpermitted pollution would be forbidden. For some reason people believe libertarians, who champion property above all, believe anyone can pollute anotherís property with impunity.
  #57  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:08 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
As already noted, Britain abolished slavery in 1833, not just in Britain, but throughout the British colonies. Prior to that, however, what was then Upper Canada passed an act in 1793 to limit slavery, and subsequently, court decisions later in that century and in the early 1800s effectively ended slavery altogether through a combination of legislation and case law, enforced by government. IOW, slavery was ended by force of law, the libertarian's nightmare. So your statement was ludicrously wrong, just like every single other thing you've said throughout this thread. Others are doing a fine job of disproving all the other incorrect statements, I just thought I'd clarify that one a bit further. Cite.


WTF does that even mean?
Oh you misread. I said slavery was ended peacefully. It was, thanks for supporting my claim.
  #58  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:15 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, it just takes an awareness of reality.

Our society functions because we have a balance between two power centers. They each keep the other in check. An absolute government, unchecked by any private enterprise, would be terrible. And absolute capitalism, unchecked by any government, would be just as terrible.
Ok so I guess, since government is doing the vast majority of stealing and imprisoning, capital must be strengthened in relation to the state. This is abundantly clear given the facts. When capital stops clothing me and feeding me and housing me so cheaply, and starts taxing me and harassing me based on my peaceful behavior, I will favor a stronger state.
  #59  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:19 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,442

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Iíve heard the same tech-geek nonsense from all-knowing neckbeards for years.
If you want to argue with substance, you are more than welcome to. But if you continue to resort to pithy pejoratives, you will not be allowed to continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
History books too complicated for you?
If you don't intend to engage with substance either, feel free to continue with the JAQing in the Pit. Do not personalize arguments in this fashion.


[/moderating]
  #60  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:23 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I think we may have the root of the problem here. If libertarians could indeed make people not steal, kill and rape, but instead respect each others freedoms, it could work quite well. Much like communism, or a host of other utopian movements.

I suspect it starts with debates in a circle of like-minded people, and never actually incorporates the fact that in a real-world situation, the "people" would be made up of just as many individuals from the more unsavory biker gangs as individuals from the debates. (Actually the relative percentage of the biker-archetypes would probably be rising quickly). And with the greatest number of people somewhere in-between and looking out for number one.
Private law and private police competing for customers would be much better than monopolized state law and police. There are already more private police than govt police and the govt police imprison and kill far more frequently.
  #61  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:27 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And how much of that is used to build prisons and "war machines"?
More than the private sector which has more money.
  #62  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:29 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Oh you misread. I said slavery was ended peacefully. It was, thanks for supporting my claim.
Your claim was that governments were the in all cases the cause of the end of slavery? Wow, who knew?
  #63  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:36 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Private law and private police competing for customers would be much better than monopolized state law and police. There are already more private police than govt police and the govt police imprison and kill far more frequently.
It was tried. Its called feudalism. It did not improve individual liberty. A modified version of it is still popular, mob activity.

Sure, the state has a monopoly on violence today, that is why there is so much less violence and more rights, which you don't have to defend with violence.
  #64  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:42 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Oh you misread. I said slavery was ended peacefully. It was, thanks for supporting my claim.
That was not what that conversation was about. "Peacefully" does not equate to "voluntarily" as you seemed to be implying. In post #23, in response to the comment "[Slavery] Ended peacefully because of slavers resisted giving up slaves they would have faced the armed might of the government - exactly the stuff you rail about." your response was "That happened literally nowhere, but cool story." In fact it happened in Britain, Canada, and throughout the British colonies, just to give a few examples. It was peaceful but not voluntary, because it was enforced by force of law. So no need to thank me; I'm not "supporting your claim", I'm pointing out that you were wrong once again.

Last edited by wolfpup; 06-04-2019 at 05:43 PM.
  #65  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:49 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Your claim was that governments were the in all cases the cause of the end of slavery? Wow, who knew?
No I said it ended peacefully. Please all, try to read the very simple words I am saying if you would like to continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
It was tried. Its called feudalism. It did not improve individual liberty. A modified version of it is still popular, mob activity.

Sure, the state has a monopoly on violence today, that is why there is so much less violence and more rights, which you don't have to defend with violence.
Feudalism was capitalism? Interesting theory for you to flesh out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
That was not what that conversation was about. "Peacefully" does not equate to "voluntarily" as you seemed to be implying. In post #23, in response to the comment "[Slavery] Ended peacefully because of slavers resisted giving up slaves they would have faced the armed might of the government - exactly the stuff you rail about." your response was "That happened literally nowhere, but cool story." In fact it happened in Britain, Canada, and throughout the British colonies, just to give a few examples. It was peaceful but not voluntary, because it was enforced by force of law. So no need to thank me; I'm not "supporting your claim", I'm pointing out that you were wrong once again.
I said it was peaceful. Never said it was voluntary. Please re-read this gets tiresome.
  #66  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:04 PM
Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Feudalism was capitalism? Interesting theory for you to flesh out.
No, feudalism is private police and private law without the protection of a strong state overseeing them. If your private police decided that they are going to triple their rates and start enforcing the jus primae noctis, you have contract law and individual rights backed up by the power of that state saying no, they can't do that.

Some try it anyway, in defiance of the government. They are known as mobs, or mafias.

If you do not have a state and enforced overarching legal framework, the private police will do as they like, and thats not something you'll like. You may think moving away would be an option, but it generally wasn't, historically. Today, you have the advantage of living in a large unitary state with safe roads, and legally similar setups in other locations that you can easily fit into. This is rare through history.
  #67  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:09 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 235
Do Haiti and Saint Croux count as peaceful endings of enslavement? Not trying to win the non sequitur contest, just curious.
  #68  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:13 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 235
And, does that fact the India abolished slavery 30 years after the British Empire mean anything with regards to people heald in bondage in the 1840s and 50s?
  #69  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:20 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
Outweighs it? What does 'outweighs' mean, exactly? If I put you in prison, do you prefer the prison that's only accountable to whether its CEO makes numbers based on its inputs?

Yeah I know. Academic question, white people don't go to prison.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-04-2019 at 06:21 PM.
  #70  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:20 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Banana republics are a thing.

Also there are ways to prevent a democracy from falling apart. Ensure a certain standard of living, address income inequality, ensure checks and balances to keep democracy stable, etc. If nations had this then the nazi & soviet revolutions would not have happened. These revolution happen in desperate nations with weak governments.

Getting rid of government is not the only, or even the best way to address authoritarianism. Better ways are building stable democracies with checks and balances, creating an involved middle class, building a social safety net, economic growth, etc.
I donít disagree with that. I just donít automatically think continually empowering the political class is necessarily good.
  #71  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:26 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,017
Well, once the state fails, the people are free to make their country a paradise. That's how failed states work, don't they?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #72  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:35 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I said it was peaceful. Never said it was voluntary. Please re-read this gets tiresome.
The quote in post #23 clearly stated that slave-owners were forced to give up slavery by force of law. As I pointed out, laws were passed and court rulings were made that outlawed the practice of slavery throughout the British colonies early in the 19th century. Engaging in the practice of slavery at that point would be breaking the law, and as libertarians never tire of reminding us, breaking the law has consequences enforced by government, including the use of force if necessary.

So we have examples of:
- slavery ended by peaceful actions of government: Britain and the British colonies.
- slavery ended by non-peaceful actions of government: USA

Please help us understand what your observation "That happened literally nowhere" in #23 refers to. What, exactly, do you claim happened "literally nowhere", that is pertinent to the comment you were responding to?
  #73  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:35 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 235
Remember how John D Rockefeller invent oil, or the oil well, or, what was it, a novel new way to buy all the empty barrels in Titusville and then overcharge for them until someone invented the pipeline so they wouldn't have to be subjected to JD's extortion, but their pipeline kept getting sabotaged until they were bankrupt and forced to sell to Rockefeller? Man, I wish our government would stop taxing his great-great-grandkids. When will the makers stop being forced to give up their wealth to the takers?
  #74  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:20 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Oh you misread. I said it was ended peacefully. It was. Especially compared to the carnage you think was necessary for some deeply ideological or psychological reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Ended peacefully because of slavers resisted giving up slaves they would have faced the armed might of the government - exactly the stuff you rail about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
That happened literally nowhere, but cool story.
Now that last line only points to weapon's grade ignorance of history. And this example is not just the USA BTW.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/britis...ticle_01.shtml
Quote:
The pursuit and capture of slave ships became celebrated naval engagements, widely reported back in peace-time Britain with its expanding print culture, and was often memorialised in souvenir engravings.

The night-time fire-fight of 6 June 1829 between the schooner 'Pickle' and the slaver 'Voladora' was well-known, as were the exploits of the schooner 'Monkey' against Spanish slave brigs off the Bahamas later that month.

HMS 'Buzzard' successfully chased and engaged the slaver 'Formidable' in 1834, the 'Electra' brought down a Carolina slaver with its human cargo in 1838, and 'Acorn' captured the rogue 'Gabriel' in the summer of 1841, to name just a few of the many sensationalised actions.

An expectant public could follow vivid accounts in the newspapers, while many of these 'battles' were also reported at home in watercolours and oil paintings, which helped sustain the positive reputation of the Navy, while also maintaining public interest in Britain's suppression activities.

Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against 'the usurping King of Lagos', deposed in 1851.
Of course, British motives were not entirely altruistic. However, it shows that Voyager was correct, slavers that resisted giving up slaves did face the armed might of the government and after that was known, others knew why it was better to give up peacefully.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-04-2019 at 07:21 PM.
  #75  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:38 PM
Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
ďEnforce freedomĒ by total war, conscription, occupation, cronyism, and increased taxation? No. Slavery ended elsewhere peacefully.
Conscription was introduced to this continent by the traitors - and in addition to conscription, the traitors. government decided that people who volunteered for one year's service were required to provide 3 years service instead. The so-called Confederacy also had an income tax - and required that farmers pay their taxes in food, rather than in the fake money that the Confederates printed.
  #76  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:48 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
No I said it ended peacefully.
Real question here: you say slavery ended peacefully in Britain. Do you mean slavery ended without coercion from the state? Or just that there was no violence?

Seems to me that youíre establishing that state coercion can be considered peaceful, which I thought is an idea youíd totally reject.
  #77  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:51 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The quote in post #23 clearly stated that slave-owners were forced to give up slavery by force of law. As I pointed out, laws were passed and court rulings were made that outlawed the practice of slavery throughout the British colonies early in the 19th century. Engaging in the practice of slavery at that point would be breaking the law, and as libertarians never tire of reminding us, breaking the law has consequences enforced by government, including the use of force if necessary.

So we have examples of:
- slavery ended by peaceful actions of government: Britain and the British colonies.
- slavery ended by non-peaceful actions of government: USA

Please help us understand what your observation "That happened literally nowhere" in #23 refers to. What, exactly, do you claim happened "literally nowhere", that is pertinent to the comment you were responding to?
Arms were never taken up by govt against the slaveowners anywhere but in the US. Other countries ended slavery legally. Passing a law is a far cry from Shermanís campaign. Letís be real.
  #78  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:56 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Real question here: you say slavery ended peacefully in Britain. Do you mean slavery ended without coercion from the state? Or just that there was no violence?

Seems to me that youíre establishing that state coercion can be considered peaceful, which I thought is an idea youíd totally reject.
Slavery ended in Britain after it became politically untenable thanks to free markets. There was also a change in attitudes among the masses.

Both changes were underway in the US when Lincoln resupplied Ft. Sumter and ignored ambassadors from the confederacy who offered payment for the fort and other federal ďpropertyĒ.
  #79  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:56 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Arms were never taken up by govt against the slaveowners anywhere but in the US. Other countries ended slavery legally. Passing a law is a far cry from Sherman’s campaign. Let’s be real.
The US took up arms against secessionists, not slave holders. It didn't matter if the secessionsts enslaved people or not.

Last edited by l0k1; 06-04-2019 at 07:57 PM. Reason: typos
  #80  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:58 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
Conscription was introduced to this continent by the traitors - and in addition to conscription, the traitors. government decided that people who volunteered for one year's service were required to provide 3 years service instead. The so-called Confederacy also had an income tax - and required that farmers pay their taxes in food, rather than in the fake money that the Confederates printed.
Yes. Statists gonna state. Where have I said the Confederacy was a libertarian paradise? The idea is laughable.
  #81  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:59 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
The US took up arms against secessionists, not slave holders. It didn't matter if the secessionsts enslaved people or not.
So it is your position the US did not take up arms against the slaveholders? Interesting theory.
  #82  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:03 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Now that last line only points to weapon's grade ignorance of history. And this example is not just the USA BTW.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/britis...ticle_01.shtml


Of course, British motives were not entirely altruistic. However, it shows that Voyager was correct, slavers that resisted giving up slaves did face the armed might of the government and after that was known, others knew why it was better to give up peacefully.
Interesting tidbit about a police action or two. The implied comparison of course is absurd.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 06-04-2019 at 08:03 PM.
  #83  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:21 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
So it is your position the US did not take up arms against the slaveholders? Interesting theory.
Not the slave holders in Maryland, or West Virginia, or even DC itself. DC's enslaved population was freed by an act of Congress and their former owners were compensated.

The Emancipation Proclamation specifically exludes all areas under not in rebellion from emancipation, down to the county and parish level.

Slavery was legal in the United States until the Constitution was amended after the rebellion ended.
  #84  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:42 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
How about we start with the basics. Donít steal. Donít deny otherís freedom.

Theft by tax vastly outweighs private theft.

Imprisonment by government vastly outweighs private imprisonments.
Of course, the invisible hand of the free market will take care of all the business cheaters, right.

Except, of course, for the ones who set up the same scam in a new town.
  #85  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:05 PM
Andy L is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes. Statists gonna state. Where have I said the Confederacy was a libertarian paradise? The idea is laughable.
I'm glad to hear you say that. It's funny when people who pretend to like liberty get so *concerned* about the Union's activities in suppressing criminals while pretending that the criminals were freedom-loving patriots.
  #86  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:11 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Interesting tidbit about a police action or two. The implied comparison of course is absurd.
Well, not my problem if more ignorance is used by you as an argument.

http://www.pdavis.nl/Background.htm#WAS
Quote:
Annual reports concerning the Mixed Courts at Sierra Leone from the British Commissioners (1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848)
Denman's destruction of the barracoons at the Gallinas River in November 1840
Jones' destruction of the barracoons at Dombocorro and elsewhere in February 1845:

the Lieut.-Governor of Sierra Leone's request to Commodore Jones
Commodore Jones' reports to the Lieut.-Governor
Commodore Jones' report of a subsequent conference with the Chiefs

A list of some 280 vessels seized or destroyed by ships of the West African Squadron in the period 1838-1845, with details of name and type of ship, date seized, location seized, seizing vessel and commander, number of slaves onboard, court where tried, and verdict
A list of 17 vessels seized or destroyed by ships of the West African Squadron in which William Loney was serving
Court reports concerning the vessels seized by navy cruisers when William Loney was on board:

Eliza Davidson seized by Wanderer, 4 April 1840 (2 slaves on board); Advocate Generals opinion
S„o Paolo de Loando seized by Wanderer, 3 June 1840
Maria Rosaria seized by Wanderer, 9 June 1840
Republicano seized by Wanderer, 14 August 1840 (case withdrawn; condemned earlier after being seized by FantŰme)
Firmť seized by Dolphin, 30 May 1841 (armed resistance offered)
Nova Fortuna seized by Dolphin, 6 June 1841 (contested case)
Josefa seized by Amphitrite, 8 september 1848 (taken to Vice-Admiralty court)

"Reports of Proceedings" from Commodore W. Jones, Officer commanding the West African squadron (5th April 1845, 23rd April 1845, 12th June 1845)
With plenty of links in the cite.

One of them is about the 1846 incidents in Sierra Leone and years of anti-slave operations before:

http://www.pdavis.nl/SL1846.htm
Quote:
My Lord,

HEREWITH we have the honour to transmit to your Lordship our annual report of the proceedings of the Courts of Mixed Commission established in this place for the suppression of the Slave Trade; also on the general state of the Slave Trade on the west coast of Africa, during the year ending the 31st of December, 1846.

In the year just concluded, no case came before the British and Netherland, British and Spanish, British and Argentine, British and Chilian, British and Bolivian, nor the British and Uruguayan Mixed Courts of Justice.

The total number of vessels presented before these Mixed Commission Courts since their establishment in this colony in June 1819, up to the 31st of December, 1846, is 528, whereof 501 were cases of condemnation and twenty-seven were either withdrawn, dismissed, or restored to the claimant.

During the same period there have been emancipated. by the Courts 64,625 slaves, of whom 56,935 have been registered here (During the year 1846, 545 slaves, the survivors of 556 captured, were emancipated by the Court of Vice-Admiralty at Sierra Leone).

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-04-2019 at 09:14 PM.
  #87  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:15 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,789
OP: Do libertarians realize private citizens are just as oppressive as the government?

As evidenced by this thread, the answer is that clearly they do not.
  #88  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:28 PM
Mcmechanic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 69
Do Libertarian ideas only begin at the civil war? What about before? The Declaration of Independence? How would things of been different?
  #89  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:22 AM
Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
So it is your position the US did not take up arms against the slaveholders? Interesting theory.
The position is that the causes of a war don't have to be symmetrical, which is a completely unsupportable premise pro-Confederates try to smuggle in implicitly.

That is, if one side goes to war for premise A, the other side does not necessarily go to war for the equal and opposite premise NOT A. Each side's reasoning must be examined, and conclusions must be drawn, separately and with a commitment to intellectual honesty.

So the South went to war to preserve slavery in the face of Lincoln, a member of a party opposed to the expansion of slavery, winning the election, with South Carolina attempting to secede in December of 1860. The North went to war after would-be secessionists fired on an American fort. The Cornerstone Speech and the various states' Articles of Secession are clear on the South's reasoning, and the North's reasoning is blatantly obvious after the attack on Fort Sumter.

So, no, we won't have anyone trying to equivocate or smuggle unsupportable premises here.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #90  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:51 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Interesting tidbit about a police action or two. The implied comparison of course is absurd.
The IRS, as far as I can tell, is totally peaceful. Therefore you must have no objection to them, right?

As for slaveholders, here is Farnaby's model of the Civil War.

Yank pointing gun at Rebel: You own slaves, brother?
Reb 1: No, I can't afford them.
Yank: You can go. (To Reb 2) You own slaves?
Reb 2: Yes, I own 3 and they want to be slaves.
Yank: Boom.

Your posts are very funny. And very stupid.
  #91  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:55 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
So it is your position the US did not take up arms against the slaveholders? Interesting theory.
Kentucky, a slaveholding state, did not secede and arms were not taken up against them. So arms were taken up against se3cessionist traitors, many of whom happened to be slave owners.
  #92  
Old 06-05-2019, 05:30 AM
not what you'd expect is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Ok we can get more basic. Do you reject self-ownership, or should I prove self-ownership before proceeding with the rest?




Libertarian do believe it applies to those thieves and heirs to thieves. We simply believe that these claims should be proven on an individual basis. Collectively calling Euro-Americans thieves and forcing reparations to Native Americans would be incorrect. The proper course would be for a Native American to dispute specific property ownership of a Euro-American (or African-American etc.).

Can you please clarify this? Who will these folks take the dispute to?
  #93  
Old 06-05-2019, 05:34 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes a lot of fact-free tech-geek pablum. The same type of nonsense was believed when they took down Standard Oil years after it reached its peak. I think it had like a 6% market share.
I understand that libertarians like to point out that Standard Oil's market share was decreasing at the time that it was broken up.
But yeah...not 6%. Multiply that by 10 at least. At its peak it was in the 90s.
  #94  
Old 06-05-2019, 05:44 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
Can you please clarify this? Who will these folks take the dispute to?
The marketplace. Marketplace knows all, judges all.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #95  
Old 06-05-2019, 06:05 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Slavery ended in Britain after it became politically untenable thanks to free markets. There was also a change in attitudes among the masses.
But surely some British were still slaveowners after it became politically untenable and hadnít changed their attitudes at the time the law was passed. But there were... peacefully coerced?
  #96  
Old 06-05-2019, 06:26 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 235
To address the continued contention that enslavement ended in the British Empire in 1834:

"British Emancipation Act of 1834 was equally half-hearted. It ended slavery only in the Caribbean, not the rest of the British Empire. Slavery only became illegal in India in 1848, on the Gold Coast in 1874, and in Nigeria in 1901. In the late nineteenth century, colonial soldiers and police in Africa were often slaves themselves. Even after it was officially prohibited, slavery continued under other names as indentured service or forced labor. As late as 1948, colonial officials privately acknowledged that domestic slavery existed in northern Ghana."

http://origins.osu.edu/review/after-...ave-trade-1807
  #97  
Old 06-05-2019, 06:59 AM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 43,949
Nobody is being forced to do business with companies like Microsoft or Amazon, or any other business. They only have power over you to the extent of the power you give them. You are always free to find an alternative. But there are consequences to not dealing with the IRS.

And it should go without saying that slavery is incompatible with libertarianism. In fact, it's the opposite.
  #98  
Old 06-05-2019, 07:57 AM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Libertarians vary by degree. Some are moderates, albeit firm supporters of Reagan's "Starve the Beast" approach of building up debt so that Ds, when back in control, cannot afford major investments. But some libertarians are quite extreme: perhaps even akin to the shrieking SovCit driving her RV without a license we saw on YouTube recently.

By now, plain "conservatives" are rather right-wing. Anyone still adhering to a "libertarian" label ó unless it's just because they like to smoke dope ó are surely pretty radical.

Let's first ask
(1) Was it proper and intelligent to coerce the population into smallpox vaccines? (Some Libs answer: Coercion is despicable. Liberty encompasses the Liberty to not have a jackbooted statist stick needles into my child. Sure, the bug might have been eradicated. So what?)

(2) Is it right and proper for a country dependent on a large rice-growing basin to tax citizens (perhaps at gunpoint) and build a system of dams and reservoirs for flood control? (Some Libs answer: There are so many alternatives preferable to seizing private wealth for Stalin-style central planning. Villagers could build levees on their own land when adjacent to the River. Chicago BOE will trade rainfall futures that can be used to hedge against floods. Why haven't these squatting farmers moved to the hills, anyway?))

(3) Which came first historically, property rights or coercive governance? (One Libertarian chose Medieval Ireland as his best example of ideal governance. I mentioned that payment of a tithe to the church was almost mandatory. "I wouldn't pay", he sniffed.)
Some libertarian(s) here have given wrong answers to all three questions, IIRC> I think we first need to move past that.

Libertarians have been discussed before, e.g. in this short Pit thread. Mods: Please delete the link if linking to a Pit thread violates a rule.

I would also like to ask Libertarians who profess to admire the elegance of free market solutions:
What do you think of ideas like Carbon Tax, which improve free market economics by assessing otherwise unafforded external costs?
\

I loved it when Libs claimed income taxes were unconstitutional, ignoring the fact that states passed the 16th amendment
  #99  
Old 06-05-2019, 08:02 AM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Most statists assume that force must be used to compel widespread behavior changes. My point is that people will change behaviors all by themselves if they're convinced to do so through valid reason and evidence. My cite is most of human history. Laws, where they exist, are lagging indicators of social change, not leading. Most people change their minds and behaviors first, and then pass laws to mandate those changes to the remaining stragglers.

If you can't convince people to change, it's probably not the best idea after all, and you should reexamine the logic and evidence used. If you can convince most people, but a few stubborn holdouts refuse to change for their own good, that's their business, not yours.

Governments and their goon squads are not required for social progress. Yes, they might accelerate it in some instances. So what? That doesn't outweigh the downsides.
so what logic, morality, or... would have convinced Southerners to free their slaves?
  #100  
Old 06-05-2019, 08:07 AM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You realize governments are made of people right? What happens when the state gets too much power? Things like Hitlerís Germany and Stalinís USSR become vastly more dangerous to humanity than things like PepsiCo.
We have a say so over our government, we vote, and we can sue. A private individual, with no government oversight, does whatever the fuck they want. Can't sue, no legal system. Can't vote for how the company you work for runs, because you're not a share holder. I don't know why a few people point out the Gov is ran by individuals, I think you're purposely missing the point.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017