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.
The Non Aggression Principle. Unless the slavery is voluntarily agreed upon between all parties, it is verboten.
And you own yourself.
Yes, thanks for answering. The slaves in the United States did not voluntarily agree to be slaves. I asked the question following this post & reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Yes but don't worry, the free market will figure things out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
If y'all would leave it alone it would. Slavery and Jim Crow laws were gross violations of the right of association, so are protective classes.
I was interested in how slavery would have been ended by Libertarian type reform? How could the owner be forced to give up his ownership of another human being? If slavery was profitable (& it was) how would free market fundamentals suggest ending? Many paradoxical questions came to mind. I also didn't understand the reference to slavery being a gross violation of the right of association.
Human nature creates slavery. Human nature ends slavery. Human nature is not fixed in stone, we evolve, we are free, we choose, we create, we destroy, we adapt, we dance, we change, we keep moving & so on.
Yes, thanks for answering. The slaves in the United States did not voluntarily agree to be slaves. I asked the question following this post & reply:
I was interested in how slavery would have been ended by Libertarian type reform? How could the owner be forced to give up his ownership of another human being? If slavery was profitable (& it was) how would free market fundamentals suggest ending? Many paradoxical questions came to mind. I also didn't understand the reference to slavery being a gross violation of the right of association.
Since libertarians believe in self-ownership (I could nitpick and say generally they do), people would just stop recognizing their ownership of other people. No force would be needed. As far as profit is concerned, slavery was actually very inefficient and costly. New inventions, as mentioned earlier, would prove to be more efficient and productive. There wouldn't be much incentive to keep slaves who cost you more and produce less.
Since libertarians believe in self-ownership (I could nitpick and say generally they do), people would just stop recognizing their ownership of other people. No force would be needed. As far as profit is concerned, slavery was actually very inefficient and costly. New inventions, as mentioned earlier, would prove to be more efficient and productive. There wouldn't be much incentive to keep slaves who cost you more and produce less.
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?
The absence of slavery means the question of ending it doesn't need to be asked.
It never made sense for people to own other people, it was never a rational practice. There are libertarians in the present day who defend, rationalize, &/or justify slavery, they seemed to be imprisoned by their ideology, their foolish absolutist consistency is the hobgoblin.
All people evolve, even Libertarians.
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 08-25-2015 at 05:23 AM..
How would slavery have ended, Libertarian fashioned?
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.
Yes, thanks for answering. The slaves in the United States did not voluntarily agree to be slaves. I asked the question following this post & reply:
I was interested in how slavery would have been ended by Libertarian type reform? How could the owner be forced to give up his ownership of another human being? If slavery was profitable (& it was) how would free market fundamentals suggest ending? Many paradoxical questions came to mind. I also didn't understand the reference to slavery being a gross violation of the right of association.
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.
It never made sense for people to own other people, it was never a rational practice. There are libertarians in the present day who defend, rationalize, &/or justify slavery, they seemed to be imprisoned by their ideology, their foolish absolutist consistency is the hobgoblin.
Then I would say they are not libertarians at all. Who are these people?
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.
