|
VitalSigns posted:This this this. The South loving loved the Union and the federal government when they controlled all three branches and the Supreme Court was overturning emancipation laws in free states, federal troops were marching into Boston to arrest escaped slaves, and the US Army was conquering Mexican territory for them in order to expand their slave empire from sea to shining sea. It's only when the majority of the country elected a free soil president and the senate tipped in favor of free states after Southern militias failed to impose slavery on Kansas by force of arms did the South finally discover their principled opposition to a federal union with supremacy over state law and their sudden support for states' rights. Just so we are perfectly clear, article 13 of the articles of confederation declared: quote:Declares that the Articles are perpetual, and can only be altered by approval of Congress with ratification by all the state legislatures. When secession came up as part of Texas V. White the court had this to say: quote:By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? The simple version is that you simply can't unilaterally decide to exit an arrangement, particularly a longstanding one that involves significant financial and legal issues on all sides. This is why Fort Sumter was an issue to begin with, it was a federal military base paid for with federal money on land that the state argued was now a foreign nation. To bring it back to my usual go to, the southern secession is like me deciding that I no longer want my condo to be part of the condo association. If everyone agreed I'm sure there is a legal way to do so, but if I say I want to and they say no it is going to be a clusterfuck because I have obligations and logistical issues. The southern states joined the perpetual union, and that came with rights and responsibilities. They can't just take their ball and go home whenever the gently caress they please.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
Caros posted:The simple version is that you simply can't unilaterally decide to exit an arrangement, particularly a longstanding one that involves significant financial and legal issues on all sides. This is why Fort Sumter was an issue to begin with, it was a federal military base paid for with federal money on land that the state argued was now a foreign nation. To bring it back to my usual go to, the southern secession is like me deciding that I no longer want my condo to be part of the condo association. If everyone agreed I'm sure there is a legal way to do so, but if I say I want to and they say no it is going to be a clusterfuck because I have obligations and logistical issues. The southern states joined the perpetual union, and that came with rights and responsibilities. They can't just take their ball and go home whenever the gently caress they please. "But their children never signed the constitution, so they never agreed and it's not fair, they have the right of self-government and their parents can't bind them and their plantations to a contract! They should be able to leave but also stay and keep all their lands and plantations and everything paid for by federal money" *later* "Well of course the original
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The antebellum South also made numerous (failed) attempts to plant slave agriculture throughout the Gulf of Mexico, and would have probably demanded the seizure or purchase of Cuba (as a slave state, perhaps by force) if they hadn't left when they did. Fun fact: Cuban elites staved off pressure from Spain to reform or abolish slavery by threatening to defect to the United States where their property would be protected rather than threatened by the oppression of the State. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
I imagine if I drove my horse through jrods apartment wall, hogtied him with a rope and dragged him off into the sunset as my new property he would be yelling, "this is okay!" the entire way to my libertarian slave camp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
az posted:I imagine if I drove my horse through jrods apartment wall, hogtied him with a rope and dragged him off into the sunset as my new property he would be yelling, "this is okay!" the entire way to my libertarian slave camp. No, he would rightfully point out by the rules of THE NAP as deduced from first principles his skin passes the paper bag test and is in fact not your property. He would then be entitled to a determination regarding your ability to pass the paper bag test which if you fail he can and will, with the assistance of other libertarians in the vicinity, cart you off to your new permanent "home". Also he'll figure out where you lived and set a controlled fire to your family.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:No, he would rightfully point out by the rules of THE NAP as deduced from first principles his skin passes the paper bag test and is in fact not your property. He would then be entitled to a determination regarding your ability to pass the paper bag test which if you fail he can and will, with the assistance of other libertarians in the vicinity, cart you off to your new permanent "home". Also he'll figure out where you lived and set a controlled fire to your family. I was wondering previously if prop rights libertarians would still support the south if, in a silly hypothetical, the slave population of the confederacy had been magically white. I'm guessing no because insert megaphone sized dogwhistle here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Definitely yes, any country that protected capitalists' property right in human slaves would immediately be rated 100% free by the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and lewrockwell.com and mises.org would be bursting with articles celebrating the economic opportunity that self-interested poor but ambitious parents would have from selling themselves or their children into chattel slavery, debunking the abolitionists' myths of abuse and poor treatment as the hysterical shrieking of statists who put their own emotional self-righteousness above economic freedom (to sell themselves) for the poor, and battling progressives' assault on the freedom of contract.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 09:48
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? No. If you support a measure for the abolition of slavery that de facto serves its continuance, you discredit yourself.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Good to know that jrode believes in life, liberty, and the right to beat your black slaves if they get too uppity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
"I believe that non-violence and the non-aggression principle are the best option ever and must always be applied in every situation. Unless it stops somebody from purchasing another human being and then raping, beating, and abusing them." - jrod
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
I believe strongly in the right of libertarians of marginally greater wealth and fairer skin to own others of their tribe with lesser fortunes, possibly akin to a libertarian centipede, need more time to finish the drawings before I can submit them to the local
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Take it up with Lysander Spooner. Are you calling into question Spooner's abolitionist credentials? Absolutely. Spooner was, charitably, a quack who had as many bad ideas as good, and was utterly ineffective at implementing either. quote:If I believe that there was a more ethical, more effective manner by which emancipation could have taken place without the bloodshed and horrific ramifications of the Civil War You don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is elementary economics. Making something "free" creates a huge spike in demand, overuse of medical resources and unintended consequences. "I took intro to Microeconomics I know what I'm talking about guys." Goddamn, I hate you so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Since we're trading insults over who actually lacks economic literacy, I have to also point out that many of you don't believe that having a primarily third party payer system drives up the cost of medical care higher than it would otherwise be in a free market. Similarly, I was met with great resistance when I noted that State subsidies and student loans for college have artificially inflated the cost of tuition. Show your evidence, because deflection is bad but lying to win is worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
I could theoretically see a consequentialist argument that abolition as the result of the Civil War could be a net negative in terms of human suffering if it could be shown that other methods were less bloody and no less hard on the actual slaves themselves. In practice, I don't think it's plausible. What's really striking is that it didn't take a civil war to abolish slavery in the North, or to outlaw the transatlantic slave trade. It's not as if abolitionism weren't "playing nice" before the South had its temper tantrum of sovereignty. The South had plenty of time and chances. Even if we accept the narrative of a "crusade by force," it was a last resort. Looking around at the rest of the world, I don't know of any other examples of a large-scale civil war over the issue of slavery either. You could make a claim for Haiti, but I think that's a special case since emancipation there was the unique result of a slave revolt, which made the line of civil division a matter of race and class. One could make the case that "state's rights," as a part of the compromise of federalism, had a causal role in as much as if made civil war specifically the method by which the conflict over slavery played out in the US because it made questions like whether slavery would be allowed into local/regional decisions instead of allowing the enforcement of a uniform policy. Elsewhere, people expected a central power to make that decision and focused efforts resolve the conflict there. In Brazil, abolition came very late and while it didn't require a civil war, it so discredited the imperial government with the landholding elite that a coup to establish a republic shortly followed without a re-institution of slavery. Structurally, there must have been some limit to what peaceful approaches to abolition allowed within the context of US politics. jrod, why is it that you think that Northern states abolished slavery without war and through their own systems for making law? What does this say about the possibilities for abolition in the South without bloodshed? Thinking this through, is "net suffering" actually your issue here, or is your consequentialism on this subject just a smokescreen for your deontological approach that the US Civil War broke too many ~freedom rules~ to be legitimate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:a rustling thicket of white supremacists Requesting thread title change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I could theoretically see a consequentialist argument that abolition as the result of the Civil War could be a net negative in terms of human suffering if it could be shown that other methods were less bloody and no less hard on the actual slaves themselves. In practice, I don't think it's plausible. What's really striking is that it didn't take a civil war to abolish slavery in the North, or to outlaw the transatlantic slave trade. It's not as if abolitionism weren't "playing nice" before the South had its temper tantrum of sovereignty. The South had plenty of time and chances. Even if we accept the narrative of a "crusade by force," it was a last resort. Well the correct method would have been the US banning slavery by law or amendment in 1820 or whenever that constitutional provision about "can't do anything about slavery til X" ran out. Of course to the jrodes of the world, that would be STATIST TYRANNY and clearly just as bad as having a few million people die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Requesting thread title change. Agreedo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Requesting thread title change. "Care about property rights or I will fight you" still needs its time in the sun. GunnerJ posted:jrod, why is it that you think that Northern states abolished slavery without war and through their own systems for making law? What does this say about the possibilities for abolition in the South without bloodshed? Thinking this through, is "net suffering" actually your issue here, or is your consequentialism on this subject just a smokescreen for your deontological approach that the US Civil War broke too many ~freedom rules~ to be legitimate? As always, Jrod doesn't give half a gently caress about consequentialism, except as a rhetorical tool. We don't care about his axioms and he knows it, so he tries to convince us that they're the best method to get good consequences. Once we press him on it hard enough, he always falls back on "actual results don't matter, the ends don't justify the means, deontology uber alles." fishmech posted:Well the correct method would have been the US banning slavery by law or amendment in 1820 or whenever that constitutional provision about "can't do anything about slavery til X" ran out. Of course to the jrodes of the world, that would be STATIST TYRANNY and clearly just as bad as having a few million people die. The correct solution would be to free the slaves when we started making a huge ruckus about Liberty and Freedom in the 1770s. Paine tried to warn us, but we didn't listen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
You can only argue the USA defending itself in the civil war was a net increase in human suffering compared to waiting for the independent CSA to ban it itself if you don't consider black people or abolitionists human. I understand why this poses problems for Libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:As always, Jrod doesn't give half a gently caress about consequentialism, except as a rhetorical tool. We don't care about his axioms and he knows it, so he tries to convince us that they're the best method to get good consequences. Once we press him on it hard enough, he always falls back on "actual results don't matter, the ends don't justify the means, deontology uber alles." Yep. My questions were "rhetorical" tools as well. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Yep. My questions were "rhetorical" tools as well. Debate & Discussion: a Bunch of Rhetorical Tools
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:The correct solution would be to free the slaves when we started making a huge ruckus about Liberty and Freedom in the 1770s. Paine tried to warn us, but we didn't listen. In all honesty, that would probably have led to most of the colonies below the Mason-Dixon not signing on to fight against the British. Most of the states above wouldn't mind because they had very few slaves (but definitely not none, outside of Massachusetts).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
What's the overlap between jroderians and sovcits, they're both constantly cranky with the government and believe in magic. I lament that I never met any specimens like him irl thus far, only milquetoast "no my taxes" ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Who's freer: Qatar or the CSA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:Who's freer: Qatar or the CSA? Trick question, there is only servitude. Back to hauling rocks with you. The population makeup of Qatar is around 50% migrants going off memory, 4% of which are "officially" enslaved. However there's also the sponsorship and kafala systems in which the employer technically holds the rights and freedom of movement etc. in their hands, so it's up to you to decide. Slavery is bad and all slaveholders deserve the Django treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:Who's freer: Qatar or the CSA?  SedanChair posted:a rustling thicket of white supremacists
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:In all honesty, that would probably have led to most of the colonies below the Mason-Dixon not signing on to fight against the British. Most of the states above wouldn't mind because they had very few slaves (but definitely not none, outside of Massachusetts). Not disagreeing there. I just don't see any scenario where the slave states would have gone along with abolition nonviolently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:THE NAP The Non-Aggression Principle is the most ridiculous part of this as it expects people to just discard the dark parts of human nature, in a political/economic system based on rewarding the dark parts of human nature. The system is based in greed and the removal of means to punish greed. People violate the NAP all the time already, and making it harder to hold them accountable will help?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:The Non-Aggression Principle is the most ridiculous part of this as it expects people to just discard the dark parts of human nature, in a political/economic system based on rewarding the dark parts of human nature. Not that Jrod hasn't already demonstrated this repeatedly, but NAP exists solely to entrench wealth and power where they already exist, enhance those structures that led to their concentration in the first place, and erect barriers against any attempts at resolving systemic inequality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:The Non-Aggression Principle is the most ridiculous part of this as it expects people to just discard the dark parts of human nature, in a political/economic system based on rewarding the dark parts of human nature. As long as we're talking basic questions, I'll repeat the one I've asked a half dozen times since I started posting in these threads: Humanity predates the state by a significant amount. If stateless society is superior to state society, how did the first states arise and displace primitive anarchy? And more importantly, what's to stop them from doing it again if AnCaps get their ideal society?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:The Non-Aggression Principle is the most ridiculous part of this as it expects people to just discard the dark parts of human nature, in a political/economic system based on rewarding the dark parts of human nature. I have never really interpreted it in this way. It seems to be acknowledged that people will violate the NAP, and the point is that only such violations can justify the use of force in retaliation. In other words it's just a stripped down application of the same principle behind "your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins," etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I have never really interpreted it in this way. It seems to be acknowledged that people will violate the NAP, and the point is that only such violations can justify the use of force in retaliation. In other words it's just a stripped down application of the same principle behind "your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins," etc. Then the only justice is vigilante justice, which is worse than what we already have. That summarizes a lot of what Jrod proposes, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I have never really interpreted it in this way. It seems to be acknowledged that people will violate the NAP, and the point is that only such violations can justify the use of force in retaliation. In other words it's just a stripped down application of the same principle behind "your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins," etc. It's a watered down version of the Harm Principle that lets industrialists dump waste everywhere. It's hilarious how much of their conclusions are a bad photocopy of Mill's Utilitarianism that they hate so much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
I'm not saying it's any good. Just that it's not like the ideology is predicated on everyone behaving (except when you ask why a doctor wouldn't price gouge given the chance and jrod answers, "Because of basic human decency!")
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
I didn't see did jrod admit that he doesn't have any federal tax liability yet? Because I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually have any skin in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
It's funny how it'd be so easy to simply say that "Nope, Slavery is not compatible with libertarianism" since, after all, it's easy to argue that you can't just stop self-ownership and as such a person can never own another person but nope. Gotta be able to own not white people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:It's funny how it'd be so easy to simply say that "Nope, Slavery is not compatible with libertarianism" since, after all, it's easy to argue that you can't just stop self-ownership Pretty sure Jrod has actually repeatedly demonstrated that people can't stop owning themselves
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I didn't see did jrod admit that he doesn't have any federal tax liability yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
fade5 posted:He never answered why "Just leave the US" isn't a valid option either. He has, the answer is hypocrisy. Immigrating is expensive and difficult: I shouldn't have to give up my home and family and friends just because some gang in DC sent skull-cracking murderers down to start integrating schools and expecting me to pay for all the services I benefit from. But then when secession comes up and someone asks what a gay person or a woman who needs an abortion is supposed to do in Ron Paul's Baptist Republic of Texas, it's  "Vote with your feet and let competition decide which country is best"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:13
|
|