Josh vs Conza saga

[Josh_LA]

This thread was started because Admin Lowry locked our previous discussion, this was meant for COnza88. If you are new to this conversation, PLEASE NOTE: My argument is to defend the fact that might makes right, no matter what system or what philosophy. Parts of this post may contain sarcasm and play as Devil's Advocate.

Ok, so it's wrong to end slavery by means of violence, I agree.

Who'd have been stupid enough to buy slaves and free them, as if people who wanted slaves wouldn't kidnap them again and re-chain them. Unless there was a social contract that slavery was wrong, and/or government coercion to punish those who dare own slaves, slavery was alive. Not necessarily well, and not necessarily for economic benefit. But slavery existed in many shapes and forms, not all racially driven either.

The fact of matter is, it took force, to achieve what was right. (or what was believed to be right) If Ron Paul was a Senator back in those days, he'd indeed speak out against civil war or any act to abolish slavery (and I'd totally agree with him).

Why should black people be counted as people if nothing in nature says so? You only THINK black people are people because you've been brainwashed by liberal socialist politically correct education. If we followed the advice of our founding fathers and Aristotle, great European thinkers from Greece to Rome, we'd know the obvious fact that since Africans have zero contribution (maybe some today, but zero back in 1800s) to CIVILIZATION, CULTURE, PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE, we shouldn't be stupid enough to consider them human beings.

In my view of anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, he who goes out and hunts a slave owns the slave. A slave who cannot break free means slave is wrong, just as citizen who cannot murder IRS agents for illegal taxation means taxation is OK (at least more OK than murdering IRS thieves).

I don't believe there's any inherent rights a human being has. A human being has what he can get. It's not that I don't believe in a free and healthy society, but I certainly don't believe society should be above a human being's rights (and might). Therefore, I don't believe in any social contract that an individual does not consent to, or isn't forced to follow.

[LibertiORDeth]

...Goooo Josh!
...Goooo Conza!

[devil21]

I want my 33 seconds back. If the thread was locked, why are you posting a new one?

[Aratus]

Josh_LA --- not all slaves in the roman empire had an african ancestry. the romans had an empire where 3/4ths of the population were
slaves. slavery was WRONG! call me a libertarian abolitionist. BEN HUR would not have liked your philosophy at all, nor his fellow
shipmates... hense methinks this is WHY why Thoreau liked to move to the beat of a different drummer, namely the drummer of his
own choosing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOT0ofuscU and even if you say to me BEN HUR the novel was pure fiction,
i know in my heart the REVOLT of SPARTACUS wasn't!!! http://www.metacafe.com/watch/216782/spartacus_movie_trailer/ methinks
both tony curtis and charlton heston would think your stance morally wrong! they gave their all to their roles in these old flics!

[Aratus]

If most contemporary to HENRY CLAY, he MAY have found himself sometimes agreeing with the same said Henry Clay. I doubt he'd
be praising slavery the way John C. Calhoun did. He would have been more soft-spoken than perhaps both Daniel Webster and
John Quincy Adams. He would have perhaps also decried the sometimes brutish practice of selling one's self into a bond servant's contract
for a seven or ten year indentiture. Slavery and economic compensation has a curious logic. Southern tobacco planations often needed the labor, and unlike the North where a hired hand hopefully could wander about and secure a living wage, slavery was an offshoot of a feudalism that tethered the laborers to the soil. ----if slave and master ought to be compensated to the hundred percentile, each, for the full value of both the labor and/or the slave, one soon finds each easily asking for the same 100 percentile that is their fair due. if the circumstance of the situation of slavery is purely economic, yet the control is maintained by violence, and the Dred Scott case springs to mind in all its ramifications, the economics of slavery is why compensation talks bogged down between 1858 and 1861, and if people took the Dred Scott case to mean that freemen and freed-men could be kidnapped into a circumstance of slavery that they did not have as an inherent status purely by whim, hundreds of miles from the plantation that could purchase the person from the kidnapper, "might" did not make "right" in 1861, "might" made possible a civil war when there was a very morally clouded issue. our echoes of the Amistad case is why we went to war... certain political factions in the south went past an economic compensation or a gradualism in terms of liberating the slaves that were on northern and southern farms and planations. certain individuals assumed they could indiscriminately kidnap people irreguardless of the laws of the state a given individual was in. the lawlessness prior to our civil war is why we had a civil war. the compromise hammered out by Henry Clay during Monroe's presidency ceases to be, and yes, the later compromise of 1850 was on shakier ground. compensation still is an issue today. the logic that would hand monies to the decendants of slaves in today's world would and could also compensate the people whose farms and businesses were gutted and burnt down in Sherman's march to the sea. labor, goods, services, honest work. the central issue. slavery is a moral thievery. wage slavery can be a moral thievery. slavery by its nature strips inalienable rights from the slave and demeans the master, we are heirs to the philosophy of John Locke, who does praise his romans.

[Aratus]

I want my 33 seconds back.
If the thread was locked, why
are you posting a new one?

again... even without having read Conza's postings,
i find myself agreeing with the tone of what is and was said.
Admin hath a set of rules most fair and logical... usually.

[JoshLowry]

This thread was started because Admin Lowry locked our previous discussion, this was meant for COnza88.

Wasn't me. Didn't your momma ever teach you not to point fingers? :p

BTW, if a mod locks you out, then send a private message...

Unless your whole point is to school a person in front of an audience?

[Aratus]

the quip by alphonse capone vis a vis hitler and mussolini springs to mind, as does the prose of Smedley Butler. certainly the dude
who negotiated with the fellows who ARE chivas regis regarded his "thompson tommies" as inate self-defense in the areas where
might makes its own right. ---truely he sought to dodge uncle sam, and then the taxman cometh. the "Ox-Myx" classic startrek episode
had a chicago gangster's "bible" as the core legal code of a future tense planet... again, smedley butler deserves his due, and war
is often a racket. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm could Ron Paul dispute this? does he think often of Smedley Butler?
yes, he does! lets face it, war is often a racket. war assumes at times might makes right. concede to brave long dead Spartacus a moral right.
he came close to being free. libertarianism with NO rules, some rules or a heck of a lot of rules? or if we have stupid rules or"mickey~mouse" rules,
we cease to be libertarian and verge on a lax fascism or anarchic socialism. Josh_LA --- you made a slew of inate assumptions as do we all...

[tmosley]

Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.

Only those who are willing to fight, kill, and die for their rights can be assured that they won't lose them. Generally, there is a certain set of overarching rights that people are willing do go to such lengths to defend. Those are what we call "natural rights". Natural rights are those that, if denied, inevitably result in violence, most often asymmetric violence (violence by authority), but will generally stir up insurrection as well. A society that wants to minimize violence and the instability that comes from that violence will recognize and protect natural rights by some means. Ours generally uses the courts.

As for slavery, that practice inevitably results in rebellion, mostly violent. Slaves are deprived of most of their natural rights. It is possible to delay or contain such violence, by turning them against each other (using the prisoner's dilemma), by appealing to their egos, supplying them with luxuries, or promising freedom to them or their children if they work hard enough, but such methods provide only transient security, and each inevitably breaks down.

Our government has forgotten where people's rights come from (their power to overthrow government), and they have begun to treat them as slaves (income and property taxes), but held off rebellion by appealing to egos (we're the greatest nation in the world), providing them with luxuries (at first by way of wealth, now by way of debt), and the promise of freedom for the worker, or their child (the American Dream and/or free education).

As we have seen, these methods of placation are coming to an end. The Master is bankrupt, and can't keep his slaves any more. He will either sell us out to a new world order, or we will have to rise up and take back what is rightfully ours.

[Bruno]

Wasn't me. Didn't your momma ever teach you not to point fingers? :p

BTW, if a mod locks you out, then send a private message...

Unless your whole point is to school a person in front of an audience?

Thank you. Many more need to heed this advice. :)

[Aratus]

In ol' virginny there was this revolt. the leader almost succeded in his aims. when jamie monroe was virginia's governor,
a fluke of a cloudburst make his choises much easier. the slave who led the revolt had the tenacity of spartacus and the fervor
of wat tyler and john ball. we are all aware of the mutiny on the bounty, and the string of breadfruit trees going to the horizon.
surely if fletcher christain had his grievances, so did the humble dude with the name gabriel who led a revolt about thirty years
before nat turner, and fifty years before john brown. monroe, rather than executing several of the ringleaders later on, insted
sent them to new orleans. making a long story short. most people who are like tony curtis or charlton heston, if wearing gabriel's
shoes or boots, would have done what he did. or even the shoes or boots of they who followed him. jamie monroe knew this.
he penned a letter to jefferson when mulling this over. http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/spl/gabrielrevolt.html again,
the revolt almost succeded, or more to the point, the rebels almost secured the person of virginia's governor. he upon restoring order
at the conclusion of several trials commutes a death sentence by bannishing several of the participants to louisiana. gabriel prosser
dies because the family members were killed on the plantation he was from. might almost made right, or might makes right. monroe
could have drawn from the militias of neighboring states were things not to have gone his way. the timing, the cloudburst. the storm
and the way the James floods... KEEP IN MIND BLIGH ALMOST SAVED HIS COMMAND! bligh may have NEVER been decried had he kept order...

Gabriel Prosser = Spartacus AND... Gov. Monroe = Gen'l Pompey

Gabriel Prosser = Wat Tyler AND... Gov Monroe = Richard II

[Aratus]

gen'l pompey suffices. monroe was not a julius caesar person. my point being...
spartacus almost conquered rome from inside. was he again as a general akin
to hannibal who almost conquered rome from outside? the mores and morals of
might makes right in light of our our pax americana era and way of doing things...

[Aratus]

gen'l washington is known for leading us in our revolution yet it was omnicent, wise president washington who had
shay's rebellion put down. taxation without representation later on collides with the discontent over a whiskey tax...
if i expect a law code, mores code or morals code to be followed with few internal inconsistancies, i am not an anarchist.

[Josh_LA]

Wasn't me. Didn't your momma ever teach you not to point fingers? :p

BTW, if a mod locks you out, then send a private message...

Unless your whole point is to school a person in front of an audience?

Didn't mean to point fingers, but who else was I to thank?

Yes, my whole point was to school a person in front of an audience (or make an ass out of myself), either way you suggested starting a new thread.

[Josh_LA]

gen'l washington is known for leading us in our revolution yet it was omnicent, wise president washington who had
shay's rebellion put down. taxation without representation later on collides with the discontent over a whiskey tax...
if i expect a law code, mores code or morals code to be followed with few internal inconsistancies, i am not an anarchist.

Yes, and Washington new DAMN WELL, you can't have law and order without elimination of injustice, you need VIOLENCE. By the logic of "couldn't we just buy slaves and free them", you should've bought out the British tyranny and give up the government power? Yeah, sounds simple enough!

[Josh_LA]

I want my 33 seconds back. If the thread was locked, why are you posting a new one?

you ain't getting it back by replying.

[Josh_LA]

Josh_LA --- not all slaves in the roman empire had an african ancestry. the romans had an empire where 3/4ths of the population were
slaves. slavery was WRONG! call me a libertarian abolitionist. BEN HUR would not have liked your philosophy at all, nor his fellow
shipmates... hense methinks this is WHY why Thoreau liked to move to the beat of a different drummer, namely the drummer of his
own choosing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOT0ofuscU and even if you say to me BEN HUR the novel was pure fiction,
i know in my heart the REVOLT of SPARTACUS wasn't!!! http://www.metacafe.com/watch/216782/spartacus_movie_trailer/ methinks
both tony curtis and charlton heston would think your stance morally wrong! they gave their all to their roles in these old flics!


Yes, I KNOW not all slaves were African descent!

I'm not saying slavery is right, I'm saying unless the revolt of Spartacus wasn't of violence, what difference would it make whether it was right? MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

[Aratus]

eventually any dominant group runs into its dialectical opposite who turns the tables on conventional wisdom. politics almost seems rock, scissors, paper... a cycle of one-upman-ship. not to make this overly hegelian, there are phases and cycles.

[Aratus]

however, we do know ghandi did chastise and humiliate the british sufficiently so they granted independence to india. the political flip side of spartacus is either ghandi or augustus caesar...

[Josh_LA]

however, we do know ghandi did chastise and humiliate the british sufficiently so they granted independence to india. the political flip side of spartacus is either ghandi or augustus caesar...

yes, sometimes emotions work, sometimes words work, but for the most part, violent works. The British COULD HAVE violently killed more Indians to keep them enslaved, but they didn't.