Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 310

Thread: Is Secession a Good Idea?

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Wrong. You do not get to define me or my intentions.

    I clearly stated earlier that humanitarian reasons are violations of human rights. Chattel slavery is a violation of human rights.
    OK, you need to make yourself clear because judging by your writing thus far, and of a number of conclusions may be reached regarding your exact position in all of this.

    You state above that both humanitarian bases for pressing men into military service and slavery are violations of human rights. That would make them both wrong, would it not? Yet in another post did you not argue in favor of such humanitarian action, or do I have you confused with someone else?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    That argument is singularly unconvincing. More atrocities have been committed in the name of "humanitarianism" in the past 20 years than by any other cause. And humanitarianism has been used as the basis for decidedly non-humanitarian acts. Murdering hundreds of thousands of Eye_Rack_Eez to "save" them... yeah, hello...

    More to the point, pressing men into military service for "humanitarian" causes is another grand example of valuing one man's rights over those of another. "Our cause is just. Therefore, we are morally entitled to violate your rights." Holy $#@!... people actually buy such reasoning. It is astonishing.
    Do you really believe that we are fighting wars for humanitarian reasons today? Just because the media tells you something does not mean it is true. OTOH, chattel slavery is a true violation of human rights of which we know was true. I'll bet real money that many slaves were very happy that some people believed strongly enough in ending slavery to set them free.

  4. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    OK, you need to make yourself clear because judging by your writing thus far, and of a number of conclusions may be reached regarding your exact position in all of this.

    You state above that both humanitarian bases for pressing men into military service and slavery are violations of human rights. That would make them both wrong, would it not? Yet in another post did you not argue in favor of such humanitarian action, or do I have you confused with someone else?
    Where did I make that statement in bold?

  5. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I'll bet real money that many slaves were very happy that some people believed strongly enough in ending slavery to set them free.
    I would bet real money that some arms manufactures were very happy that some people believed strongly enough in ending slavery to set them free by means of a war instead of some other more surgical and discerning an approach. But what does this prove in the end?

  6. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by Stallheim View Post
    Read a little closer, I never defined you or your intentions. I attempted to identify what definition you were using, and critiqued the usefulness of that definition. Could you explain your second sentence, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say, as I havn't made any particular statement about whether humanitarian reasons are or are not violations of human rights. And in what context; war?
    Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.

    Do not make the assumption that war is necessary to correct human rights violations unless all other peaceful avenues fail.

  7. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.

    Do not make the assumption that war is necessary to correct human rights violations unless all other peaceful avenues fail.
    These two sentences don't seem to have any connection to the quote you are responding to. Could you clarify the points you are trying to make here?

  8. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Wrong. You do not get to define me or my intentions.

    I clearly stated earlier that humanitarian reasons are violations of human rights. Chattel slavery is a violation of human rights.
    Second sentence in bold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.

    Do not make the assumption that war is necessary to correct human rights violations unless all other peaceful avenues fail.
    I clearly stated earlier that humanitarian reasons are violations of human rights. = Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.

    It is a simple statement of fact.

    You make the assumption that I want to go to war to correct human rights violations. That is not true. However, I am willing to stand up for my rights and the rights of others with force IF NECESSARY.
    Last edited by Travlyr; 10-22-2012 at 10:01 AM.

  9. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.
    There's a $#@!load of human rights, and it's different everywhere, depending on your culture, upbringing, philosophy, community.

    The only human right that matters is secession.

    For example you have implied that a girlfriend has a right to not be beaten. As long as she has the ability to leave that relationship, or force the boyfriend to leave that relationship (if the home belongs to her), then her right to not be beaten remains protected. If she continues to be beaten, it is by her choice. Like it or not, its not your place to go riding in on your white horse to save the day.

    (Assuming she is outside of your jurisdiction... if she's your neighbor, and your community outlaws beating girlfriends... then its a different story)
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-22-2012 at 10:34 AM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Second sentence in bold.



    I clearly stated earlier that humanitarian reasons are violations of human rights. = Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.

    It is a simple statement of fact.

    You make the assumption that I want to go to war to correct human rights violations. That is not true. However, I am willing to stand up for my rights and the rights of others with force IF NECESSARY.
    I do not make that assumption that you want to got to war to correct human rights violations, but I am pleased to hear of your conviction in opposing that very common point of view. Standing up for the rights of others is what sets the courageous man truly apart. When it comes to this whole humanitarian discussion, I was simply questioning why you differentiated the Civil War as a humanitarian war compared with others like WWII. I just don't think that any war should be labeled as humanitarian since this might lead to a falsely emotional justification or at least a sympathetic appeal to side with the aggressors. That is all. You were not making a strong case for the Civil War being Humanitarian, you said perhaps, I don't want to hold you too firmly to a loose inference that you made.

  12. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Like it or not, its not your place to go riding in on your white horse to save the day.
    That is easy to say if you are not the one getting beaten.

    We tolerate millions of non-violent offenders behind bars in America because too few people are standing up for the rights of others. We tolerate predator drones in the skies because too few people want to get involved and save the day. We tolerate a police state because too few want to enforce their rights until it is too late. We tolerate a monetary system of counterfeiting theft for the same reasons.

    Freedom is not free. If we are not willing to stand up for our rights and the rights of others, then who is going to join you in standing up for your rights when they are being violated?
    Last edited by Travlyr; 10-22-2012 at 11:01 AM.

  13. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    That is easy to say if you are not the one getting beaten.
    If a person is being beaten but does not want to leave the relationship there's not much you can do. You can force her to leave the relationship, but a) that's wrong, and b) would probably do more harm than good

    We tolerate millions of non-violent offenders behind bars in America because too few people are standing up for the rights others.
    Violates the right of secession. Save them. Give me a call I'll stand by your side.

    We tolerate predator drones in the skies because too few people want to get involved and save the day. We tolerate a police state because too few want to enforce their rights until it is too late. We tolerate a monetary system of counterfeiting theft for the same reasons.
    Wars of this nature are a violation of the right of secession. The arabs don't have the freedom to disassociate themselves from our country's interventions. Additionally, this is all funded because our right of secession is being violated. Stand up for yourself, and these people, give me a call, and I'll be by your side.

    Freedom is not free. If we are not willing to stand up for our rights and the rights of others, then who is going to join you in standing up for your rights when they are being violated?
    I'm willing to stand up for the right of freedom. The right of secession IS freedom. Where it is being violated (and given the state of the world... that's pretty much everywhere)... I support 100% any efforts to fight for that right.

    I do not support overthrowing dictators. I support seceding from dictators. I do not support forcing our rule of law on others. I support giving people the freedom to follow their own rule of law.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-22-2012 at 11:04 AM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  14. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    There's a $#@!load of human rights, and it's different everywhere, depending on your culture, upbringing, philosophy, community.

    The only human right that matters is secession.

    For example you have implied that a girlfriend has a right to not be beaten. As long as she has the ability to leave that relationship, or force the boyfriend to leave that relationship (if the home belongs to her), then her right to not be beaten remains protected. If she continues to be beaten, it is by her choice. Like it or not, its not your place to go riding in on your white horse to save the day.

    (Assuming she is outside of your jurisdiction... if she's your neighbor, and your community outlaws beating girlfriends... then its a different story)
    I really disagree with this. Coming to the aid of a person threatened with force is well within classical liberal, Libertarian or even Anarchist logical boundaries. The non-aggression principle relates to the initiation of violence (or the overt threat thereof) once this threat has emerged then anyone can aid that person without violating NAP. There are extensive discussions of this on mises.org, in Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, over at Reason, and with the Cato and FEE people, as well as in Hoppe's Democracy the God that Failed. By all means go ride in on you white horse.

    Now that being said, you are afforded no special protections for riding in and saving someone. Also there is nothing here to suggest that individual decision makers have any justification for forcing anyone else to do this white horse rescuing on their behalf. Even worse, a state initiating a war to do this liberating, renders the electorate complicit in the invasion (whether individuals agree specifically with it or not) and by extension the argument can be logically made that they are all then subject to retaliation, pre-emptive strikes and the like for their aquessence to and participation in the system they subserviate themselves to. This was why the founders were so vehement about a reactionary, non-entangling foreign policy.

  15. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Stallheim View Post
    I really disagree with this. Coming to the aid of a person threatened with force is well within classical liberal, Libertarian or even Anarchist logical boundaries.
    There's a Communist state known for police brutality. The political rhetoric is the police brutality keeps everyone safe. I, with no money or property, decide to enter their country, and they gladly welcome me.

    I'm living near the border to your country, living in my small apartment building. Smoking cigarettes is illegal. I know it's illegal. But I enjoy a smoke every now and then. I go outside, sit on a bench, don't see anyone around, and I light up a cigarette.

    Police see me on their cameras, and beat the $#@! out of me. They won't kill me, and there's no permanent damage... this happens all the time in this country.

    You're sitting across the border, and you see it happen.

    Do you intervene? Do you want to intervene? Should you intervene? Is it morally right to intervene?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  16. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    There's a Communist state known for police brutality. The political rhetoric is the police brutality keeps everyone safe. I, with no money or property, decide to enter their country, and they gladly welcome me.

    I'm living near the border to your country, living in my small apartment building. Smoking cigarettes is illegal. I know it's illegal. But I enjoy a smoke every now and then. I go outside, sit on a bench, don't see anyone around, and I light up a cigarette.

    Police see me on their cameras, and beat the $#@! out of me. They won't kill me, and there's no permanent damage... this happens all the time in this country.

    You're sitting across the border, and you see it happen.

    Do you intervene? Do you want to intervene? Should you intervene? Is it morally right to intervene?
    Ok, Nope, I do not want to risk my life, property or freedom to help you. Do I want to? Not particularly, I think it is terrible for them to do this to you but that is part of the reason I live where I do, but I also think it is foolish for you to live where you do if you really like to smoke so much. I just don't feel that moral urge to intervene, and there are plenty of moral justifications I can come up with for not doing it, morality is intensely personal or it has no value. It would be wrong to force me to intervene as well. Did I pass the test? I think I need a harder one! If you want to leave (personal secession) and they try to prevent you from going I would still weigh my personal commitment to you against my concern for myself and others I care more about.
    Last edited by Stallheim; 10-22-2012 at 12:20 PM. Reason: spelling

  17. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    He pandered.

    He was an abolitionist. A famous one. His election was seen as a mandate to end slavery. It sparked the war. Then he was a president of a war-torn country which would rather not have been at war. So, he felt the need to reassure the abolitionists, the pro-slavery people, and those who didn't much care that he, first and foremost, was working for the day when a union would be back at peace--and with just as many states as it started with.

    Presumably it sounded good at the time. And I have little doubt that he was distressed to be part of the cause of a war. But the war would likely have come with or without him. Many people wanted an end to slavery, and the union united. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again

    Sometimes I feel like the lone ranger for keeping a balanced view on Lincoln. He was neither the vampire nor the vampire slayer.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.


    Edit: And a funny introduction to the "tariff of abominations".

    Last edited by jmdrake; 10-22-2012 at 12:43 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by Stallheim View Post
    Ok, Nope, I do not want to risk my life, property or freedom to help you. Do I want to? Not particularly, I think it is terrible for them to do this to you but that is part of the reason I live where I do, but I also think it is foolish for you to live where you do if you really like to smoke so much. I just don't feel that moral urge to intervene, and there are plenty of moral justifications I can come up with for not doing it, morality is intensely personal or it has no value. It would be wrong to force me to intervene as well. Did I pass the test? I think I need a harder one! If you want to leave (personal secession) and they try to prevent you from going I would still weigh my personal commitment to you against my concern for myself and others I care more about.
    You personally would not intervene. Would you have any objections if someone else wanted to intervene?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  21. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTlmznJTXo

    Edit: And a funny introduction to the "tariff of abominations".
    Excellent video. Nullification before Secession.

  22. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    Not to derail the thread, but wasn't part of the problem that the south wanted a place for the slaves to go, instead of just dumping them into the ditch just outside the property line? And wasn't that fought against by the northern states, as in "Let the slaves go free, but keep them in your own yard"?
    Ummm....no. If that were true then the south wouldn't have been bitching about the north not enforcing "fugitive slave laws".

    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  23. #260
    My outlook is equally grim, especially as I watch millions upon millions of people willingly accept and pay for their own shackles by immersing themselves in the latest gadgets and technologies.


    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I agree with you 100% on all points, but one thing is missing: context. Context is needed to properly qualify the statement and in this case the context is that of Empire. People of Empire are precisely as you describe - the qualities you list are conditioned into them and that conditioning takes advantage of all that is the lousiest in humanity. In the context of tribal anarchy, your assertions do not generally apply as far as my studies of such social groups has indicated thus far. I mention this for the sake of better completeness and clarity, both of which are essential to proper communication and understanding of ideas. It is particularly important in cases such as this because it is very much the human proclivity to generalize too broadly.

    Human beings are NOT hopeless per se, but they ARE hopeless within certain contexts. The context of Empire, particularly with large populations and strong technological bases such as we have today, damns humanity and relegates it to abject doom. The momentum of all the qualities you cite is now so great that the chances of freedom surviving the juggernaut of almost universally supported authoritarianism reduces to vanishing proportions. The lies that make up the entitlement delusion are so perfected and broadly and profoundly accepted that the piss-ant minorities made up of people such as ourselves do not amount to a small hill of beans and now stand a near-zero chance of being able to live their lives apart from the unwashed and stinking hordes of blue-pillers.

    Good post. Thanks.

  24. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    My outlook is equally grim, especially as I watch millions upon millions of people willingly accept and pay for their own shackles by immersing themselves in the latest gadgets and technologies.
    Indeed. Part of our modern Bread And Circuses routine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  25. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    You personally would not intervene. Would you have any objections if someone else wanted to intervene?
    Tell me some details about this intervening person. Do I know them? Have they claimed any authority over me? what is our relationship? After all I live right on the border, I don't want this coming back to bite me.

  26. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by Stallheim View Post
    Tell me some details about this intervening person. Do I know them? Have they claimed any authority over me? what is our relationship? After all I live right on the border, I don't want this coming back to bite me.
    Just some guy you don't know. He feels very strongly about police brutality and feels morally compelled to intervene.

    Would you object to his intervention, and if so, is blowback on you your only objection to his intervention?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  27. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Just some guy you don't know. He feels very strongly about police brutality and feels morally compelled to intervene.

    Would you object to his intervention, and if so, is blowback on you your only objection to his intervention?
    No and Yes



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Stallheim View Post
    No and Yes
    I for one do object. That Communist community is entirely voluntary, and they believe that police brutality is "for the greater good." I, as a citizen of that Communist state, agree with that, and voluntarily moved there knowing there would be a high likelihood I would become a victim of police brutality. Even after it happens to me, I still believe the police brutality is good policy.

    For someone to intervene, is to tell me that I am not allowed to live my life the way I like it. I object to that completely.

    That kind of thinking has ramifications far and above simple police brutality. You are in effect saying, that if someone believes that they know how I should live my life, and they are willing to invade my land, my community, to make that happen, you do not object to it.

    I couldn't disagree more.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  30. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Do you really believe that we are fighting wars for humanitarian reasons today?
    I do not recall either saying or implying such a thing. But to be explicit, no. And even if I did, I would consider them immoral if engaging in such a war exposed innocent people at home to retaliation or other related dangers and if men were forced to fight.

    Just because the media tells you something does not mean it is true. OTOH, chattel slavery is a true violation of human rights of which we know was true. I'll bet real money that many slaves were very happy that some people believed strongly enough in ending slavery to set them free.
    That may be so, but it still was not the North's business to interfere. Slavery would have lasted perhaps another 10 or 15 years. The moment machinery such as the cotton gin came into widespread use, the need for slaves would have rapidly evaporated. Chattel slavery is a costly proposition for the owners. It is, in fact, more costly than simply hiring labor. You do not have to feed hires, nor clothe, not doctor, nor house them. Given this, I am not even quite sure why slaves were used, other than it was a cultural momentum phenomenon that was on the wane in any event.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  31. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I do not recall either saying or implying such a thing. But to be explicit, no. And even if I did, I would consider them immoral if engaging in such a war exposed innocent people at home to retaliation or other related dangers and if men were forced to fight.



    That may be so, but it still was not the North's business to interfere. Slavery would have lasted perhaps another 10 or 15 years. The moment machinery such as the cotton gin came into widespread use, the need for slaves would have rapidly evaporated. Chattel slavery is a costly proposition for the owners. It is, in fact, more costly than simply hiring labor. You do not have to feed hires, nor clothe, not doctor, nor house them. Given this, I am not even quite sure why slaves were used, other than it was a cultural momentum phenomenon that was on the wane in any event.
    Just a point of correction. The cotton gin, with its ability to process more cotton, actually created a need for more slaves.

    I agree that slavery, though, would have died a natural death on its own.

    Slavery had been around in the American colonies since the 1600's. At first, slaves were very cheap. The Dutch offered free slaves to people in order to settle New Amsterdam (New York City). The importation of slaves was outlawed as of 1808. After that, the cost of slaves went up drastically.

    As to the whole morality of slavery, it cannot be looked at in isolation through a modern lens. There were, in fact, people being treated worse in America than the typical slave. Their maltreatment continued long after slavery was abolished.

    While the Southern economy was powered by slave labor, Northern factories were often powered by child labor.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Theophilus Fisk, a Connecticut publisher and Jackson Democrat is ranked as one of the major leaders of the early U.S. labor movement. Fisk denounced wealthy White campaigners for negro rights and in 1836 gave what has been described as a “fierce anti-abolitionist speech” in South Carolina. Fisk’s anger derived from his observation that White slavery had been ignored. Fisk “found that America’s slaves had ‘pale faces’ and as abolitionism grew in Boston, called for an end to indulging sympathies for Blacks in the South and for ‘immediate emancipation of the White (factory) slaves of the North.”.

    Charles Douglass, president of the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Working Men, described the four thousand White children and women at work in the factories of Lowell, Massachusetts in the 1860s as “dragging out a life of slavery and wretchedness... These establishments (New England’s factories) are the present abode of wretchedness, disease and misery...”

    Ruth Holland, commenting on the participation of New England factory owners in the cause of abolitionism and rights for negroes in the south, observed, “It’s a little difficult to believe that northern mill owners, who were mercilessly abusing (White) children for profit, felt such pure moral indignation at (negro) slavery.”


    http://www.whattheproblemis.com/docu...ere-slaves.pdf
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  32. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    I for one do object. That Communist community is entirely voluntary, and they believe that police brutality is "for the greater good." I, as a citizen of that Communist state, agree with that, and voluntarily moved there knowing there would be a high likelihood I would become a victim of police brutality. Even after it happens to me, I still believe the police brutality is good policy.

    For someone to intervene, is to tell me that I am not allowed to live my life the way I like it. I object to that completely.

    That kind of thinking has ramifications far and above simple police brutality. You are in effect saying, that if someone believes that they know how I should live my life, and they are willing to invade my land, my community, to make that happen, you do not object to it.

    I couldn't disagree more.
    Not my community, not my fight, not even my country! I am not an officer of the law, I am not an elected official, he isn't my kid, he isn't even my neighbor. Feel free to kick his ass, but he isn't my responsibility as a complete stranger. You can object but you can't convince me to even break a sweat over your strange commitments to your foreign police state. Don't get me wrong, I support you fully in objecting until you are blue in the face.

  33. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_dub View Post
    As to the whole morality of slavery, it cannot be looked at in isolation through a modern lens. There were, in fact, people being treated worse in America than the typical slave. Their maltreatment continued long after slavery was abolished.

    While the Southern economy was powered by slave labor, Northern factories were often powered by child labor.
    No, certain moral judgments can be made for all time; slavery is always bad, denying the very fundamental of ownership of one's own self, and hence self determination. No justification of conditions is acceptable here, since the fundamental is unchanged. Child labor sounds bad, conditions sound worse? but is it voluntarily chosen? Then it is not worse than slavery, if the children are held against their will or forced to work, then it IS slavery anyway. The modern income tax and the military draft are also forms of partial slavery too. I object to them all fundamentally to the degree of total enslavement that they represent. Perhaps one can make a case that certain slaves were allowed to do certain things, earn money, have some free time; well in this case they were not a total slave then, just mostly enslaved. If you must pay 50% of your income to the government under threat of imprisonment then as far as the labor that you expend to earn that taxed income you are 50% enslaved, no matter how nice the IRS agent you deal with is, or how much time and leniency they give you to cough it all up.

    My quibble might be unjustified if you are simply saying that there were children and white slaves in the North as well. But slavery can be looked at as theoretically bad for all time, in my opinion. See Rothbard, especially Ethics of Liberty and Hoppe DTGTF

  34. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    I for one do object. That Communist community is entirely voluntary, and they believe that police brutality is "for the greater good." I, as a citizen of that Communist state, agree with that, and voluntarily moved there knowing there would be a high likelihood I would become a victim of police brutality. Even after it happens to me, I still believe the police brutality is good policy.

    For someone to intervene, is to tell me that I am not allowed to live my life the way I like it. I object to that completely.

    That kind of thinking has ramifications far and above simple police brutality. You are in effect saying, that if someone believes that they know how I should live my life, and they are willing to invade my land, my community, to make that happen, you do not object to it.

    I couldn't disagree more.
    Also I see absolutely no moral requirement to support any foreign governmental system of coercion, no matter who likes and supports it. I have no horse in that race.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Ron Paul: Good News !! Secession is happening
    By Dianne in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-20-2015, 01:07 PM
  2. Ron Paul: Good News !! Secession is happening
    By Dianne in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2015, 07:45 PM
  3. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 12-31-2009, 09:10 AM
  4. Alaska a good candidate for Secession.
    By Chosen in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 11:55 AM
  5. Youtube Questions Project Phase 1 - good idea, bad idea?
    By chinaCat in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •