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.
At that point in time there were many societies that didn't have slavery, it was possible for folks to move to Countries that didn't have slavery. You were attempting to compare your libertarian situation with folks who say, If you don't like it, move ....
I'm curious which ones didn't have slavery...not saying you're wrong, but I'm interested to know. Even if there were other places without slavery, the people speaking out against it in their own society shouldn't have to move. They want to stay where their family, friends, job, and entire life is, but they want to convince them to stop supporting the ownership of other human beings.
Quote:
No problem, I understand. Just remember time travel is not an option. In other words, the solution cannot be something like, time travel back & never implement the institution of owning human beings as property to begin with. Granted, it is a wonderful solution however time travel is not an option.
Ok, but I'm guessing there will be scenarios where the problem was caused by the state in the first place, so I'd have to say something like "get rid of such and such policy, which should have never been instituted in the first place, and then allow things to slowly go back to the way they were and evolve from there." I guess that wouldn't require a time machine.
Yes, that's correct. He doesn't support racism, but he supports the right to be racist. It's basically the same type of deal as the right to free speech. You can have any nasty opinion you want, but nobody has the right to punish you for your beliefs.
& he would have also supported voluntary associations of ... fr'instance ... plantation owners, who would not only have the right to free speech but the right to protect their property rights?
(what is the libertarian solution to end owning people as property?)
& he would have also supported voluntary associations of ... fr'instance ... plantation owners, who would not only have the right to free speech but the right to protect their property rights?
(what is the libertarian solution to end owning people as property?)
The plantation owners would be stripped of their "right" to own other humans, and that society would stop enforcing slavery. The slaves are free to go, and since the plantation owner is initiating force against others (the former slaves) to keep them on his plantation, force is justified in protecting them and getting them to safety.
Right that's kind of the point, property rights aren't self evident, it's whatever we say they are. Which is why you have to wait to find out what property rights scheme is in place in order to determine who initiated force. Which leads "your force isn't bad, it's the initiation of force is bad" to become question begging. It's going to turn out that whatever violates your version of property rights is initiating force and whatever falls in with your version of property rights is justified. That's true of every system of property rights though. Currently if an owner prohibits a minority from entering into an establishment open to the public the owner is initiating force against the patron and courts would rule accordingly, while previously that wasn't so.
Again, here you're assuming your conclusion, the rule is property rights. It's a way to adjudicate scarceness, if you're not in possession of a waffle iron you don't own it, it does, as you say, revert to the state of nature, and the courts would adjudicate it accordingly ruling that someone who used force against someone holding a waffle iron and claiming it was theirs because of some bill of ownership would be unjustified. The rule says whoever is holding it owns it. Now you may have some utilitarian objections to why that rule is bad, but it's still a property right rule.
Alright, I think I see what you're getting at. The goal is for society as a whole to adopt the respect for property rights and the non-aggression principle (don't initiate force). As long as a critical mass of people in that society value those principles, the way that society operates will follow. People often think that the law dictates the beliefs of society, but it's the opposite. That's why different cultures have different laws.
The plantation owners would be stripped of their "right" to own other humans, and that society would stop enforcing slavery. The slaves are free to go, and since the plantation owner is initiating force against others (the former slaves) to keep them on his plantation, force is justified in protecting them and getting them to safety.
I think Ron Paul might disagree with you. The short lived Confederate States of America surely did.
I think Ron Paul might disagree with you. The short lived Confederate States of America surely did.
Maybe. I like to simplify things, so let's say...If 2 people in a group of 20 want to own 8 other people, they'll need the help of the other 10 to enforce it, or else they're outnumbered and the slaves can just fight back or escape. When the other 10 are convinced that slavery is wrong and refuse to help the slaveowners enforce it, they probably don't even need to help the slaves go free. If one slave gets trapped and can't leave, you treat it like a hostage situation.
Hey ChiGeekGuest - I have an article you might like. It's by Jeffery Tucker, a really awesome guy and an anarchist. Just saw it posted on his facebook page...
Yes, that's correct. He doesn't support racism, but he supports the right to be racist. It's basically the same type of deal as the right to free speech. You can have any nasty opinion you want, but nobody has the right to punish you for your beliefs.
It's interesting how Ron Paul (in the present day) supports the right to be racist or the freedom to discriminate. Some folks want freedom from racism & discrimination. & before the American Civil War? The slaves can just fight back or escape?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Maybe. I like to simplify things, so let's say...If 2 people in a group of 20 want to own 8 other people, they'll need the help of the other 10 to enforce it, or else they're outnumbered and the slaves can just fight back or escape. When the other 10 are convinced that slavery is wrong and refuse to help the slaveowners enforce it, they probably don't even need to help the slaves go free. If one slave gets trapped and can't leave, you treat it like a hostage situation.
How would a libertarian convince slavery is/was wrong?
Alright, I think I see what you're getting at. The goal is for society as a whole to adopt the respect for property rights and the non-aggression principle (don't initiate force). As long as a critical mass of people in that society value those principles, the way that society operates will follow. People often think that the law dictates the beliefs of society, but it's the opposite. That's why different cultures have different laws.
Before the American Civil War, American society respected property rights & most did not want to initiate force. It's difficult to imagine property rights extending to human beings.
From what I understand, the non-aggression principle is a political principle derived from a moral standard, although is far from a complete moral or ethical system.
It's interesting how Ron Paul (in the present day) supports the right to be racist or the freedom to discriminate. Some folks want freedom from racism & discrimination. & before the American Civil War? The slaves can just fight back or escape?
The only solution is to get people to stop enforcing slavery. If people believe we need it or that it's okay, then it will exist. That was true then, and is still true today.
Quote:
How would a libertarian convince slavery is/was wrong?
By reasoning with people and trying to make an argument that persuades them. Some people will reject your idea, and others will adopt it. Hopefully more people adopt it than reject it, and it gains momentum quickly. If the argument is valid, it should convince the logical and open-minded people, and eventually as it gains steam the rest will follow because they trust those smart people, or because they just go with what everyone else thinks.
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.
