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 slaves were never property to begin with. They were slaves.
So who or what was it that first classified slaves as property?
Hint: The State
Ok, that should have been a spoiler but I digress.
You act as if the state forced private individuals to buy slaves from Africans. Private individuals wanted the state to permit slave trading and to recognize slaves as property rights. This idea the state is the cause of all ills is a red herring.
You act as if the state forced private individuals to buy slaves from Africans. Private individuals wanted the state to permit slave trading and to recognize slaves as property rights. This idea the state is the cause of all ills is a red herring.
You're onto something:
If individuals can do horrible things to each other why is the answer to that possibility creation of a centralized authority made up of individuals who are given the right to do horrible things on behalf of others to protect them from the bad people?
But alas, who watches the watchmen?
In short, bad people like doing bad things. If there is a place where they can go to do those bad things without getting punished, and not only that but rewarded, doesn't it stand to reason that bad people would join that group (the government/State)?
The only moral and logical solution to this paradigm is complete freedom for the individual. That is why property rights are absolute. If I can't own a gun, but another man can...that's a problem. If I can't shoot a burglar in my home without threat of prosecution and he can use violence against me...that's a problem. If I can't sell the fruits of my labor to any willing customer without the permission of an involuntary 3rd party...that is a problem.
It's a problem because it concedes that I don't own myself. That is where the mindset of slavery begins, within the Statist paradigm, and that is where it flourishes.
In the early 2000s, Brett Kavanaugh was an associate on one of President George W Bush’s legal councils. As part of his role on this committee, he assisted with the drafting of the infamous PATRIOT Act. To put it simply, this law tremendously increased the government’s surveillance powers, weakened former privacy laws, and led to the unconstitutional surveillance state we live under today. The PATRIOT Act laid the foundation for the wiretapping, data collection, and NSA spying that would soon follow.
For a supposed “constitutionalist”, it seems that Kavanaugh was actively in support of the highly unconstitutional practice of massive unwarranted surveillance. Such immense powers in the hands of government is more tyrannical than anything the Founders could’ve dreamed of. Therefore, Kavanaugh has shown that he clearly does not support the constitution as it was written and should not have the authority to interpret it.
Exactly...I posted this in another 'pro Kavanaugh thread' and *crickets*. Not a word. Apparently people refuse to consider that this guy is not who they thought he was. And his position on the 4th amendment is not limited to the Patriot Act, this article discusses a number of cases where he supported eroding our 4th amendment rights.
Exactly...I posted this in another 'pro Kavanaugh thread' and *crickets*. Not a word. Apparently people refuse to consider that this guy is not who they thought he was. And his position on the 4th amendment is not limited to the Patriot Act, this article discusses a number of cases where he supported eroding our 4th amendment rights.
What's your theory on why the Democrats didn't go after Brett K. on his anti-4th Amendment/pro-Patriot Act stance and decided to throw sexual misconduct against the wall...hoping it would stick?
What's your theory on why the Democrats didn't go after Brett K. on his anti-4th Amendment/pro-Patriot Act stance and decided to throw sexual misconduct against the wall...hoping it would stick?
My theory is that the last thing they wanted was for a sexual assault allegation to be made part of the argument against him but they had no choice. Ford asked for it not to become public and someone leaked it, once that happened other people started making allegations, like a snowball from hell.
Before that became "the issue" the democrats did what they should have done, they tried to get the timely release of pertinent documents that were withheld from them, a large part of those had to do with his influence on the patriot act as well as several other issues that he was involved in when working with the Bush administration, Grassley flat out refused and there is no mechanism for the minority to get any records, they have to go with what Grassley was willing to provide them. I think that was a disservice to the American people, I also think Kavanaugh's senate investigation should have been bipartisan. And because they got away with it, there is nothing to persuade them to be more fair in the future.
If individuals can do horrible things to each other why is the answer to that possibility creation of a centralized authority made up of individuals who are given the right to do horrible things on behalf of others to protect them from the bad people?
But alas, who watches the watchmen?
In short, bad people like doing bad things. If there is a place where they can go to do those bad things without getting punished, and not only that but rewarded, doesn't it stand to reason that bad people would join that group (the government/State)?
The only moral and logical solution to this paradigm is complete freedom for the individual. That is why property rights are absolute. If I can't own a gun, but another man can...that's a problem. If I can't shoot a burglar in my home without threat of prosecution and he can use violence against me...that's a problem. If I can't sell the fruits of my labor to any willing customer without the permission of an involuntary 3rd party...that is a problem.
It's a problem because it concedes that I don't own myself. That is where the mindset of slavery begins, within the Statist paradigm, and that is where it flourishes.
In theory the governed through their voting. In the absence of government a few powerful private individuals become the de facto government, which can't be voted out.
My theory is that the last thing they wanted was for a sexual assault allegation to be made part of the argument against him but they had no choice. Ford asked for it not to become public and someone leaked it, once that happened other people started making allegations, like a snowball from hell.
Before that became "the issue" the democrats did what they should have done, they tried to get the timely release of pertinent documents that were withheld from them, a large part of those had to do with his influence on the patriot act as well as several other issues that he was involved in when working with the Bush administration, Grassley flat out refused and there is no mechanism for the minority to get any records, they have to go with what Grassley was willing to provide them. I think that was a disservice to the American people, I also think Kavanaugh's senate investigation should have been bipartisan. And because they got away with it, there is nothing to persuade them to be more fair in the future.
I respect your opinion but I think you're way off.
Because most voters have pea brains, short attention spans, limited intellectual capacity, and thus can't be bothered with fundamental, meaningful issues.
It is much easier for 80% of the country to whoop and holler with inane childish schoolkid remarks than to actually
THINK.
You want to read stupid, childish, sandbox ignorant, and irrelevant, read this thread:
Exactly...I posted this in another 'pro Kavanaugh thread' and *crickets*. Not a word. Apparently people refuse to consider that this guy is not who they thought he was. And his position on the 4th amendment is not limited to the Patriot Act, this article discusses a number of cases where he supported eroding our 4th amendment rights.
If we wouldn't let in so many suspect foreigners into the country, there would be no justifiable need for the Patriot Act. Open borders was the "first sin".
The USA is an immigrant nation. Most acts of domestic mass shooting terrorism in this country haven't been perpetrated by Muslims or Mexicans, but rather angry white males
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.
