[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Kanada wrote:
Slavery? That is forcing someone to contribute to society and then taking their rewards. At least give someone the options of death. Plus, slavery often took the form of raiding civilians populations. I dunno, how is slavery good?[/quote]
Matters what form of slavery it is, I suppose. In some countries slavery came in the form of indentured servants. That in itself (paying of debts) is good, because it allows that can’t afford to take out a loan and repay it to do so through labor. As well, when countries waged war against each other, the victor would enslave those who lost. Now, if you’re talking about what happened to those in America in which their human dignity was non-existent, then yes that is bad. But the forms of slavery are so broad, that to generalize slavery as bad would be laziness of our reasoning faculties.
As well, generalizing slavery as bad brings into the question the legitimacy of the government. Can someone be a master over one’s country? Or, isn’t only just to dissolve into radical individualism?[/quote]
slavery means that some humans are other humans property. From an egalitarian perspectiv thats just wrong, but I give you this: The slavery of the antic world where different than the mass-slavery of more modern times. A slave in old greece, Rome or in arabia had a better situation, than the black slave in america. If your master was of high class, the slave had a life wich resembled that one of a high class citizen. In the ottoman empire an entire slave army( mameluks I think they where called ) had the control of egypt for a long period of time. The army functioned as governing class. So yes there is difference between slavery, but a libertarian like you should see the extrem violation of individual freedom and property rights slavery is.[/quote]
In a conservative perspective egalitarianism is just wrong. Some men are meant to be masters over others. And, life is worth living.
Egalitarianism destroys what G-d has ordained. As well, egalitarianism still leads to aristocrats in which there are masters. After all anyone who votes with more than their own vote is an Aristocrat. So, egalitarianism is just one aristocrat moving into the office of another.
I am no longer a libertarian.[/quote]
How is egalitarianism one aristocrat moving into the office of another?
As far as I know egalitarianism is not a ideology as libertarianism or socialism. Its more of a ideal. Both libertarians, socialists and liberals have egalitarian ideals. All 3 thinks that the law should be equal for everyone. universal suffrage is another concept thats egalitarian, but it is not an ideology in the traditional sense, its more of a value.
so as far as I can see, you should blame the aristocrat elected into office on representativ-democracy.
So you went from libertarianism to conservativism? can I ask why?
