Lysander Spooner: Civil War was a worse crime than slavery

[Lightfiend]

Lysander Spooner: Slavery, The Constitution And Civil War

The individualist anarchist on American values espoused in the Constitution and the injustices of Lincoln's Civil War. Could slavery have ended more peacefully?

[torchbearer]

Slavery ended peacefully in the europeans countries.
England didn't go through a civil war to end slavery.
You just buy up the slaves and ban the sale of humans.

[dr. hfn]

it wasn't about slavery!

[Todd]

Buc Jason in 3....2......1....

[Matt Collins]

I think that both slavery and the illegal invasion of a sovereign country by the US government are reprehensible.


.

[Erazmus]

buc jason in 3....2......1....

hahaha!!!!!

[Brian Defferding]

Slavery ended peacefully in the europeans countries.
England didn't go through a civil war to end slavery.
You just buy up the slaves and ban the sale of humans.

This is one part that I disagree with Ron Paul on - the southern slave states never would have wanted to sell their slaves to the government. No way. It's a great idea in theory, but it wouldn't have worked in the 19th century. The slave states would never have wanted to pay legit labor.

[torchbearer]

This is one part that I disagree with Ron Paul on - the southern slave states never would have wanted to sell their slaves to the government. No way. It's a great idea in theory, but it wouldn't have worked in the 19th century. The slave states would never have wanted to pay legit labor.

if you read the history of farm implements, you'd see that slavery would have been replaced by the tractor and combine.
you could get 4 people to do the job of 100 slaves.
the cost of hiring 4 people legit would be cheaper than buying 100 slaves, feeding/housing them, etc.
Looking at the history of farming, a peaceful resolution would definitely be possible.

[Matt Collins]

if you read the history of farm implements, you'd see that slavery would have been replaced by the tractor and combine.
you could get 4 people to do the job of 100 slaves.
the cost of hiring 4 people legit would be cheaper than buying 100 slaves, feeding/housing them, etc.
Looking at the history of farming, a peaceful resolution would definitely be possible.

I am not a historian so I don't really know what I am talking about, but to play devil's advocate here, what if the end of slavery hastened the farm technology of which you speak? In other words since slavery was ended they had more incentive to produce more efficient ways of farming which mean inventing better technology.


.

[torchbearer]

I am not a historian so I don't really know what I am talking about, but to play devil's advocate here, what if the end of slavery hastened the farm technology of which you speak? In other words since slavery was ended they had more incentive to produce more efficient ways of farming which mean inventing better technology.


.

slavery ended elsewhere. those implements were going to be developed for those countries. we would either be left behind in production or adapt the new technology.

[catdd]

Jefferson Davis knew that the days of slavery were quickly coming to an end.

[Erazmus]

I am not a historian so I don't really know what I am talking about, but to play devil's advocate here, what if the end of slavery hastened the farm technology of which you speak? In other words since slavery was ended they had more incentive to produce more efficient ways of farming which mean inventing better technology.


.

In a free market, incentive is profit -which means out producing your competitors. Innovation occurs to enhance productivity. Someone is always going to look for a way to improve production. For example: the cotton gin was created during slavery times, so this goes against your premise.

Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin revolutionized the cotton industry in the United States. Prior to his invention, farming cotton required hundreds of man-hours to separate the cottonseed from the raw cotton fibers. Simple seed-removing devices have been around for centuries, however, Eli Whitney's invention automated the seed separation process. His machine could generate up to fifty pounds of cleaned cotton daily, making cotton production profitable for the southern states.

source: http://inventors.about.com/od/cstart...cotton_gin.htm

[Matt Collins]

In a free market, incentive is profit -which means out producing your competitors. Innovation occurs to enhance productivity. Someone is always going to look for a way to improve production. For example: the cotton gin was created during slavery times, so this goes against your premise.

That's what I thought. Thanks for making the point

[John Taylor]

This is one part that I disagree with Ron Paul on - the southern slave states never would have wanted to sell their slaves to the government. No way. It's a great idea in theory, but it wouldn't have worked in the 19th century. The slave states would never have wanted to pay legit labor.

Considering they were paying for northern merchantilists already through the transfer payment system of the trariff, you're probably right.... except, Brazil abolished slavery by doing precisely what is urged here, peacefully, without bloodshed.

[ARealConservative]

if you read the history of farm implements, you'd see that slavery would have been replaced by the tractor and combine.
you could get 4 people to do the job of 100 slaves.
the cost of hiring 4 people legit would be cheaper than buying 100 slaves, feeding/housing them, etc.
Looking at the history of farming, a peaceful resolution would definitely be possible.

so then you would only have to buy 4 slaves, not 100 slaves.

it doesn't end the economic advantage slave labor has over non coercive labor.

[torchbearer]

so then you would only have to buy 4 slaves, not 100 slaves.

it doesn't end the economic advantage slave labor has over non coercive labor.

you don't have to pay for housing or food for regular labor.
the pay they give mexicans now is comparable to what it would cost to house and feed slaves.

[torchbearer]

slave labor wasn't free labor, it was cheap labor.

[ARealConservative]

slave labor wasn't free labor, it was cheap labor.

correct. not free, just cheaper.

a free man would always cost more then forced labor. Why would a free man hold out only for enough funds to live on the same level of luxury given to the slave?

[raiha]

Originally posted by Brian Defferding

This is one part that I disagree with Ron Paul on - the southern slave states never would have wanted to sell their slaves to the government. No way. It's a great idea in theory, but it wouldn't have worked in the 19th century. The slave states would never have wanted to pay legit labor.

The Northern Financial centres spun gold from the slave fields of the South.

By 186o New England was home to 473 cotton mills. If the South seceded, the cotton would go direct from New Orleans to Europe and those godly slave-ship builders and powerful textile manufacturers would miss out. On the cusp of the Civil war the 10 major cotton states were producing 66% of the world's cotton (half of the US exports.)

No war has ever been fought for altruistic reasons. You find the would-be altruism weaving their way throug the rhetoric like the master textile merchants they are.

I compare it to if you eat meat you need to face the full consequences of your action and be prepared to kill it yourself.
If you are going to commit heinous acts, at least don't pretend you are not being heinous.

The increase in slavery in the South rose to meet the production in the North. Fantastic book to read is"

"How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Slavery: Complicity." Farrow, Lang and Frank. It be written by Northern folks.

[Dunedain]

slave labor wasn't free labor, it was cheap labor.

Like today with the Mexicans picking our peaches.

[torchbearer]

Like today with the Mexicans picking our peaches.

that is correct. same thing as a jamaican working for $20/week at a resort that charges $1000/night

[torchbearer]

so then you would only have to buy 4 slaves, not 100 slaves.

it doesn't end the economic advantage slave labor has over non coercive labor.

economic advantage of slavery?
would you please list these and how they are superior to a volunteer force working for equivalent pay?

[Matt Collins]

The Northern Financial centre,,,,

Please modify you original post, those were NOT my words! It was a misquoting.

[ARealConservative]

economic advantage of slavery?
would you please list these and how they are superior to a volunteer force working for equivalent pay?

a voluntary work force will require you to pay them enough to not live in a shanty with the other 3 slaves. They will require you to pay them enough to buy more food then the bare minimum required to survive. And they will require you to pay them a high enough wage to be able to not only meet this higher living conditions, but to save on top of it, to raise a family, etc, etc.

You have to compete for a voluntary work force. For slavery, you only have to complete with other people looking to buy slaves as a way to lower their labor costs.

pretty basic stuff

[torchbearer]

a voluntary work force will require you to pay them enough to not live in a shanty with the other 3 slaves. They will require you to pay them enough to buy more food then the bare minimum required to survive. And they will require you to pay them a high enough wage to be able to not only meet this higher living conditions, but to save on top of it, to raise a family, etc, etc.

You have to compete for a voluntary work force. For slavery, you only have to complete with other people looking to buy slaves as a way to lower their labor costs.

pretty basic stuff

you have to buy the slave, you don't have to buy the volunteer.
you have to house the slave. feed the slave, cloth the slave, medically treat the slave (or buy a replacement).
You don't have that overhead with volunteers.
pretty basic stuff.

[silus]

Lysander Spooner: Civil War was a worse crime than slavery

Unless I missed it, I don't think Spooner was suggesting this point at all. Maybe you should edit this.

[ARealConservative]

you have to buy the slave, you don't have to by the volunteer.

Not necessarily. You have to hold a person against their will and force them to work against their will.

you have to house the slave. feed the slave, cloth the slave, medically treat the slave (or buy a replacement).

people that work do so to meet the same basic needs, but they also will require enough money to live better then a slave is allowed.

Your refusal to accept this simple statement reflects poorly on you.

It isn't slavery if the person doing the work is happy with the exchange he is given for his labor

basic stuff

[ARealConservative]

Unless I missed it, I don't think Spooner was suggesting this point at all. Maybe you should edit this.

it's in the link provided.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Civil War was horrible. But abducting individuals from their homeland, throwing them at the bottom of ships and chaining them up, forcing them into a life of servitude, raping their women, destroying their families, treats human beings like cattle, whipping, hanging, burning, and beating the $#@! out of individuals because you feel they arent human. Totally destroying any sense of history within a culture? All for 200 years??!

Ehh, slavery was pretty $#@!ing bad IMO.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

slave labor wasn't free labor, it was cheap labor.

Come over here and be my slave for a year and see how you feel about that statement.

$#@!in idiot.