Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Slavery ended all over the civilized world without a war. Moral shifts of Society do not happen rapidly, but that shift was well underway and would have been completed without a war.
The deaths of 800,000 Americans was totally unnecessary.
This is similar to the 'It would have never started.' response.
Mkpunk and Whogo were giving you sarcastic replies. Ignore them.
It really is quite simple. Libertarians do not believe in slavery. Quite clearly, they believe all people own themselves and have individual rights. In fact, that is one of the cornerstones of the libertarian philosophy.
Mr. Mkpunk was sarcastic, Mr. Whogo seemed to be grasping at straws.
Most folks in the present day do not defend, rationalize &/or justify slavery. Neo-Confederates are one of the groups that continue to defend, rationalize &/or justify slavery in our past. Libertarians? Some do & some don't. Some seem to get tied in knots when it comes to segregation, states' rights, Jim Crowe laws, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Then I would say they are not libertarians at all. Who are these people?
The 'It would have never started' responses are not good enough. If Libertarians want to be taken seriously, it would be helpful if they can rationally persuade why their approach is workable in solving problems. If there is no pragmatic path to problem resolution except to say that these problems wouldn't exist if we were all libertarians is not convincing.
The 'It would have never started' responses are not good enough. If Libertarians want to be taken seriously, it would be helpful if they can rationally persuade why their approach is workable in solving problems. If there is no pragmatic path to problem resolution except to say that these problems wouldn't exist if we were all libertarians is not convincing.
Mr. Mkpunk was sarcastic, Mr. Whogo seemed to be grasping at straws.
Most folks in the present day do not defend, rationalize &/or justify slavery. Neo-Confederates are one of the groups that continue to defend, rationalize &/or justify slavery in our past. Libertarians? Some do & some don't. Some seem to get tied in knots when it comes to segregation, states' rights, Jim Crowe laws, etc.
Mr. Mkpunk was sarcastic, Mr. Whogo seemed to be grasping at straws.
Most folks in the present day do not defend, rationalize &/or justify slavery. Neo-Confederates are one of the groups that continue to defend, rationalize &/or justify slavery in our past. Libertarians? Some do & some don't. Some seem to get tied in knots when it comes to segregation, states' rights, Jim Crowe laws, etc.
First off, my post was a sacarstic satirical bon mart. Why can't we have a few every page to liven things up? I figured someone would laugh and not get butthurt over it. Instead I read posters asking to ignore me..
Yeah when it comes to Jim Crow laws, libertarians typically take the stance of it should be the state that decides it, even if it inherently makes people unequal. Say the Civil Rights Act of 1964, libertarians would likely say that interrupts free enterprise and freedom of association for businesses.
The article you listed is interesting but let's remember something, most slaves in American slavery weren't willing slaves, they were carted in by boats from Africa or a generation or so away from that with no choice in particularly in states that would join the Confederacy. The article talks about slavery by choice which would be like working as a migrant worker which some former slaves did after the abolition of slavery.
Does rational persuasion violate the non aggression principle? How could people who were owned by other people rationally persuade the people who owned them they were being irrational? How would that work?
Rational persuasion does not violate the non-aggression principle. It's essential to a free society (reason > force as I always say). What I meant was that slavery only worked because society allowed it. If a slave ran away or escaped, people thought they were the ones who were wrong because they were essentially "stealing" from their owner. Even fellow slaves looked down on those who escaped a lot of the time because they were convinced that their master rightfully owned them. Once the paradigm shifted in society and they stopped believing slave ownership was legitimate, they wouldn't track down and return runaway slaves. Even if plantations managed to keep their slaves from running, which is unlikely, business would go down the toilet if the public knew they had those slaves. It wouldn't be sustainable.
So my point was just that you don't need force to free slaves. People could even help slaves escape the plantation without using force. If the owner tried stopping them, use force in self-defense or on defense of the slaves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
