More than the private sector which has more money.
Your claim was that governments were the in all cases the cause of the end of slavery? Wow, who knew?
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.
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.
No I said it ended peacefully. Please all, try to read the very simple words I am saying if you would like to continue.
Feudalism was capitalism? Interesting theory for you to flesh out.
I said it was peaceful. Never said it was voluntary. Please re-read this gets tiresome.
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.
Do Haiti and Saint Croux count as peaceful endings of enslavement? Not trying to win the non sequitur contest, just curious.
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?
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.
I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t automatically think continually empowering the political class is necessarily good.
Well, once the state fails, the people are free to make their country a paradise. That’s how failed states work, don’t they?
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?
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?
Now that last line only points to weapon’s grade ignorance of history. And this example is not just the USA BTW.
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.
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.
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 you’re establishing that state coercion can be considered peaceful, which I thought is an idea you’d totally reject.
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.
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 “property”.
The US took up arms against secessionists, not slave holders. It didn’t matter if the secessionsts enslaved people or not.
Yes. Statists gonna state. Where have I said the Confederacy was a libertarian paradise? The idea is laughable.