"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I think war is a good way to abolish slavery. And I think in the cases where laws have been used instead of war, that the enslaved people have gotten the raw end of the stick while the enslavers pat themselves on the back for their humanity in freeing the slaves after it has become economically and politically neutral/beneficial to do so.

You think so?  Here's the problem with that - I personally know people who still think that the Civil War was not about slavery, it was about "state rights" and the North were the evil aggressors and all they wanted to do was to plunder the south, blah blah blah.  They completely ignore that it was the insistence on state rights and small federal government that kept slavery going for so long, and all they can see is the aggression of the north.  Which proves Gandhi right when he said: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

dtguitarfan wrote: Argonaught wrote: dtguitarfan wrote:   Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.   Slavery/serfdom is a part of the feudal economic system, which is woefully inefficient. As we know from history, feudalism in a given country would either be rendered obsolete by industrialization, or hindered industrialization for as long as it could. Which, in turn, would make the feudal slave/serf-owning society progressively poorer and weaker in comparison to their industrialized neighbors.  There have been several paths to legally abandoning of slavery/serfdom: from a king's decree to a peasant uprising to a civil war to an occupation by another country to a peaceful transition, but the true driving mechanism is the economical "survival of the fittest".  So let me rephrase the question then, into two questions: 1) Why is it that Libertarians feel that "letting the free market do its thing" would be a better solution to slavery than an organizational structure stepping in and ruling that it is against the law? 2) Why is it that we don't see, historically speaking, any countries universally giving up slavery voluntarily because they saw the light and realized that it would benefit them economically?  Why is it that it seems to be that everywhere slavery was abolished, it was because of laws?

I think war is a good way to abolish slavery. And I think in the cases where laws have been used instead of war, that the enslaved people have gotten the raw end of the stick while the enslavers pat themselves on the back for their humanity in freeing the slaves after it has become economically and politically neutral/beneficial to do so.

Argonaught wrote: dtguitarfan wrote:   Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.   Slavery/serfdom is a part of the feudal economic system, which is woefully inefficient. As we know from history, feudalism in a given country would either be rendered obsolete by industrialization, or hindered industrialization for as long as it could. Which, in turn, would make the feudal slave/serf-owning society progressively poorer and weaker in comparison to their industrialized neighbors.  There have been several paths to legally abandoning of slavery/serfdom: from a king's decree to a peasant uprising to a civil war to an occupation by another country to a peaceful transition, but the true driving mechanism is the economical "survival of the fittest".

So let me rephrase the question then, into two questions:
1) Why is it that Libertarians feel that "letting the free market do its thing" would be a better solution to slavery than an organizational structure stepping in and ruling that it is against the law?
2) Why is it that we don't see, historically speaking, any countries universally giving up slavery voluntarily because they saw the light and realized that it would benefit them economically?  Why is it that it seems to be that everywhere slavery was abolished, it was because of laws?

Epignosis wrote: Awesome video.  I love Wal-Mart and will continue to shop there.  I love that video even more because it throws out the silly "These six people control more wealth than the bottom 30% of the US."  Well, of course they do.  If you have $10 in your pocket and no debt, then you are wealthier than 25% of the US.  Talking in a funny voice isn't an argument against Libertarianism.  Neither are statistics that actually demonstrate (in a roundabout way) what we're saying here.  Remember, we're not Republicans. Do you know who else qualifies for welfare?  Full time public school workers.

Since you're so smart, why don't you answer the problem I pointed out in the article that you guys refuse to read because it's so threatening to you: how, exactly, would slavery have stopped if the federal government hadn't finally done its job and stepped in, "tyrannically", and taken away the states' rights for human beings to own other human beings?  American WAS founded on Libertarian ideas.  And that's what allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did.  It wasn't until the time-bomb that was laid into the constitution went off and the federal government finally assumed the control it had under that document that slavery was finally abolished.  You live in a fantasy world where anything that can be called Libertarian and didn't actually work is not really Libertarian, because that's the only way to protect your already fully formed viewpoint that doesn't match up to reality.

Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Rob, that anthology looks awesome. I am glad it has Herman Melville in it. He is my favorite American novelist. A professor once asked me to read Moby Dick. I replied, "I would prefer not to." (I did indeed abandon Moby Dick and still got an A in the course).

Classic.

I love the book though.

So if America before Walmart was this mythical faerieland of high wages, mom and pop store and plenty of jobs, how did Wal mart find workers to accept their horribly low wages so that they could charge low prices so that they could drive everybody else out of business and ruin America? Why didn't people just keep working at those amazing Mom and Pop stores that were making everybody rich? And why is "Made in China" a bad thing? Don't Chinese people deserve jobs too, or do we just want all of them to starve?

Rob, that anthology looks awesome. I am glad it has Herman Melville in it. He is my favorite American novelist.

manofmystery wrote: Whether or not my life improves beyond this point at least I can look upon your posts and feel good about myself. You've no desire to learn or grow and certainly have never shown any serious interest in an open exchange of information here. Clearly, your only desire is to continue looking for little angles to attack our ideals, while yours destroy the world around us. Have a lovely day.

Right back atcha buddy.  You have no desire to think about history of statistics or what works in this life.  All you care about is clutching at your predetermined identity that is right and everyone else is wrong.

Epignosis wrote: How exciting! I won a literary anthology from a raffle!  It uses literature to get students thinking about individualism, self-reliance, and what it means to be an American. It includes three speeches by Calvin Coolidge.

Very nice. Hopefully your students appreciate it, which they won't, because they're students.

Woody Guthrie and Stevie Wonder too!  Would have liked to see more musicians but...I'm biased I admit .  One thing is obvious from the list, you can't accuse the curriculum's authors of partisanship.

Congrats on the win, btw.