As far as I know it’s not legal anywhere either.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
As far as I know it’s not legal anywhere either. [/quote]
Legal means different things in different places.
BTW, it was only a year ago that Mississippi ratified the 13th Amendment.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t agree. Taking away someones freedom, in this case, is not the same as slavery, imo. You said you don’t want to get into whether being a prisoner is slavery, fine, but it seems like a pretty important piece of your argument. You want me to accept prisoner are slaves, well I don’t.
If a prisoner gave birth to a child while incarcerate and that child was then incarcerate I’d agree with you.
It is illegal to drive 150 mph on I-95, am I a slave if I am arrested for this? Am I a slave simply because I am not free to drive that fast?
[/quote]
Slavery and imprisonment may not be the same, in your opinion, but whoever wrote the 13th Amendment seemed to believe they were.
If a slave master allows a slave to let a free person take her child and free it, is the slave no longer a slave?
No, you’re not a slave if you’re arrested for driving that fast, because the state owns the road. You’re a slave because you’re not free to not pay for its road.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
No, you’re not a slave if you’re arrested for driving that fast, because the state owns the road. You’re a slave because you’re not free to not pay for its road.
[/quote]
The social contract theory was first seriously developed by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, however nowadays is more remembered by the radical French revolutionist Rousseau. Funnily enough in more very early days I was quite taken with Hobbes who could only be described today as an absolute monarchist. He was heavily influenced by the destruction caused by Cromwell’s revolution and the English Civil War.
Regardless, no society is possible without giving up certain rights to the government. One of these is paying tax. I’ll leave you with a quote from Cicero: ‘We are in bondage to the law in order that we may be set free’
Without law there is only anarchy. Law is almost always the better of two evils…certainly in your country.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
No, you’re not a slave if you’re arrested for driving that fast, because the state owns the road. You’re a slave because you’re not free to not pay for its road.
[/quote]
The social contract theory was first seriously developed by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, however nowadays is more remembered by the radical French revolutionist Rousseau. Funnily enough in more very early days I was quite taken with Hobbes who could only be described today as an absolute monarchist. He was heavily influenced by the destruction caused by Cromwell’s revolution and the English Civil War.
Regardless, no society is possible without giving up certain rights to the government. One of these is paying tax. I’ll leave you with a quote from Cicero: ‘We are in bondage to the law in order that we may be set free’
Without law there is only anarchy. Law is almost always the better of two evils…certainly in your country.[/quote]
Can private law not exist? Socialism doesn’t work well for any good or service. There is no reason you need to follow my laws while on your property; there is no reason I need to follow yours while on mine. Do some people not forbid guests from wearing shoes inside their homes, while others do not care? If rulers can make laws for private property, then that property is not actually owned by the “owner.” That property belongs to the rulers.
Uhuh, whatever you say Nick.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Oh yeah. When the South started to realize that their population wasn’t growing at nearly the same rate as the North’s, thereby presenting quite the problem from a Congressional representative standpoint, the concession that the South made was that blacks were now considered to be 2/3 of a man.
Of course, this isn’t a view held by everyone back then, certainly not all of the Founding Fathers. I really don’t know where all of them stood on the issue, but blacks definitely were not considered to be born equal. They say on the one hand that all men are created equal, meaning that you should not be held as inferior based on some condition you are created with. On the other hand, they enslave an entire race of people based on their skin color, something they were created with. Quite the exception to the rule.[/quote]
The southern states would have loved to be able to count every slave as part of their populations. I think you’re confused about this issue. It had nothing to do with viewing slaves as less than human.
[/quote]
Nick is 100% correct about this. [/quote]
He is right for the wrong reason. Yes southern slave states would have loved to count slaves as a whole person for electoral college purposes only. Otherwise slaves were property, therefore, less than human. [/quote]
DBCooper made a statement about how slaves were considered to be “2/3”(I believe it was actually 3/5) of a person. To me, he seemed to be talking about how slaves were counted for electoral reasons. Slaves were not considered subhuman; many people just believed humans could be owned at the time.
When DBCooper tried to make it a race issue, instead of a slave vs. non-slave issue, he was even more off the mark. Some black people owned slaves, some white people were slaves.
[/quote]
No, you are off the mark. I never tried to make it a race issue. The issue of slavery in the U.S. is itself a race issue, since it was only one race that could legally be owned as property in the U.S. at the time of the Founding Fathers and then Lincoln.
My point is that I have a hard time following the idea that the Constitution is a perfect document, that it should never be allowed to change (which is a conservative interpretation of it), based on the imperfect mindset of the people who wrote it.
We are talking about people who were revolutionaries. What made them revolutionary was their view toward individual freedom and equality at birth. It seems to me that if we are going to treat the Constitution in terms as absolute as many conservatives would like to, we are simply bound by some haphazard compromise in which economic freedom for some was placed above the need to give all people the exact freedoms that the revolution ostensibly stood for. How do you write, “all men are created equal” and then have legal ownership of another man?
I was actually trying to give the Founding Fathers the benefit of the doubt by showing that they didn’t consider blacks to be human in the first place. But the fact is that even that is a poor excuse. And if the Founding Fathers DID consider blacks to be fully human, then it is even more foolhardy to try and defend them, because they would then be willingly engaged in a massive hypocrisy, given the language of the Constitution.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
No, you are off the mark. I never tried to make it a race issue. The issue of slavery in the U.S. is itself a race issue, since it was only one race that could legally be owned as property in the U.S. at the time of the Founding Fathers and then Lincoln.
[/quote]
Are you lying, calling me a liar, saying I’m wrong or have you not read any of my numerous posts on white slavery in the new world and that a: the numbers exceeded the West Africans and b: they were worth one tenth the value of a black slave?
PS John Jay successfully petitioned the NY legislator to prevent Catholics serving office. Oliver Cromwell reduced the population of Ireland from 1.1 million to less than half a million in a few years. He sold 50,000 slaves(mostly children) to the New World. Even prior to Cromwell James I sold Irish slaves to Virginia and in a single transaction James II sold 30000.
I’m having a hard time understudying why blacks have so many social problems and so on. I’m sure they’d be much better off in Liberia than the US.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
No, you are off the mark. I never tried to make it a race issue. The issue of slavery in the U.S. is itself a race issue, since it was only one race that could legally be owned as property in the U.S. at the time of the Founding Fathers and then Lincoln.
[/quote]
Are you lying, calling me a liar, saying I’m wrong or have you not read any of my numerous posts on white slavery in the new world and that a: the numbers exceeded the West Africans and b: they were worth one tenth the value of a black slave?
[/quote]
I have no clue what you are talking about. I wasn’t addressing you with my last post, or anywhere else in this thread’s recent history. I don’t care what color any of these people were. I find it hard to accept that we should follow the original intent of the Constitution’s authors when their original intent was to create a society that respected the inalienable fact that all men are born equal…and yet never intended on giving up their right to ownership of another man.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I have no clue what you are talking about. I wasn’t addressing you with my last post, or anywhere else in this thread’s recent history. I don’t care what color any of these people were. I find it hard to accept that we should follow the original intent of the Constitution’s authors when their original intent was to create a society that respected the inalienable fact that all men are born equal…and yet never intended on giving up their right to ownership of another man.[/quote]
The Constitution provided a way to outlaw slavery(even at the national level).
Those who believe the original intent of the Constitution should be respected are typically just saying that few things should be justified by citing either the Necessary and Proper or Commerce Clause. The Constitution was intended to be the law of the United States.
Is that respected today? Three crimes are mentioned in the Constitution. The number of federal crimes is now in the multi-thousands.
Neither the Constitution nor the founding fathers were anywhere close to perfect, but a concrete law is far better than tyrannical rule by whim.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
No, you are off the mark. I never tried to make it a race issue. The issue of slavery in the U.S. is itself a race issue, since it was only one race that could legally be owned as property in the U.S. at the time of the Founding Fathers and then Lincoln.[/quote]
-I must have been confused by your repeated use of the word “blacks” instead of “slaves.”
-How many say it should never be allowed to change? It provides a way to change it.
-What made them revolutionaries was the fact that they were attempting to overthrow their existing government in favor of a new one. Again, the Constitution provided a way to outlaw slavery…and do anything else that is CONSTITUTIONAL.
-How was it a massive hypocrisy? The Constitution did not forbid slavery.
The “…all men are created equal…” sentence is not part of the Constitution.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
No, you are off the mark. I never tried to make it a race issue. The issue of slavery in the U.S. is itself a race issue, since it was only one race that could legally be owned as property in the U.S. at the time of the Founding Fathers and then Lincoln.[/quote]
-I must have been confused by your repeated use of the word “blacks” instead of “slaves.”
-How many say it should never be allowed to change? It provides a way to change it.
-What made them revolutionaries was the fact that they were attempting to overthrow their existing government in favor of a new one. Again, the Constitution provided a way to outlaw slavery…and do anything else that is CONSTITUTIONAL.
-How was it a massive hypocrisy? The Constitution did not forbid slavery.
The “…all men are created equal…” sentence is not part of the Constitution. [/quote]
Just curious Nick, do you think slavery still should be legal ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious Nick, do you think slavery still should be legal ?
[/quote]
I don’t think any form of slavery should ever be accepted. I oppose all forms of slavery. I am a voluntaryist.
I do not think a war to enslave all, in exchange for a new master for some, was a good thing.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Can private law not exist?
[/quote]
Most countries(including yours) already do. It’s a component of ‘civil law.’
Don’t like Walmart? Sue them. Don’t have the money? Earn it. That’s free enterprise. It’s preferable to camping outside Wall street, shitting in buckets and screaming about ‘evil corporations’, Jews etc.
Well actually there is. You have private property rights however for the good of society you cannot commit criminal offenses on your property regardless of ownership. Your property is not a ‘sovereign state.’ This concept has been recognised since pre-history.
[quote]
there is no reason I need to follow yours while on mine. Do some people not forbid guests from wearing shoes inside their homes, while others do not care? If rulers can make laws for private property, then that property is not actually owned by the “owner.” That property belongs to the rulers.[/quote]
Again no. Private property rights are enshrined in the constitution, however these rights were amended in cases where it is deemed in the public interest. i.e. building a highway. You have numerous chances to fight the decision in court but at the end of the day the needs of the many are likely to out way your need to own that particular piece of land. If you lose an independent property assessor will pay you the market value and take your property. This all dates back pre-social contract theory when monarchs did the same thing(particularly to Catholic church property during the Reformation.)
You seem like a young guy. I’m sure with some study and thought your opinions on these matters will develop over time. And BTW I am a VERY strong advocate for property rights and limited government power. I’m just not an anarchist.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Again no. Private property rights are enshrined in the constitution[/quote]
Where?
What is the public? It doesn’t exist.
So, in other words, this is a form of mob rule under which individuals have come to accept what a ruler demands.
Interesting. If I am paid the market value of my property, then my property is not being TAKEN. Anybody would willingly SELL his property for its market value. Value is subjective.
A monarchy may be a nice change from this democracy god.
I consider myself young, although that’s kind of a relative description.
That’s what brought me to these opinions. I don’t plan to ever go back to loving my enslavement.
Why did you feel the need to include this sentence?
[quote]I’m just not an anarchist. [/quote] What is an "Archist" -- KEVIN CRAIG - "Liberty Under God" Beginning in Missouri's 7th Congressional District
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious Nick, do you think slavery still should be legal ?
[/quote]
I don’t think any form of slavery should ever be accepted. I oppose all forms of slavery. I am a voluntaryist.
I do not think a war to enslave all, in exchange for a new master for some, was a good thing.[/quote]
Thanks 
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Where?
[/quote]
Here:
The main clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are:
‘Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
and here:
I’m literally speechless. The public doesn’t exist? Society doesn’t exist? Have you taken your seroquel today? Look out the window. See those people? Those are real people.
No, your lack of political philosophy is exposing your ignorance. Mob rule is ‘direct democracy’ as practiced by the Athenians. The US and every western country on earth has ‘representative democracy’. That’s where the imaginary people outside your window vote regularly on who they wish to govern them. Again, the social contract comes into play as they give up certain rights to these municipal, state and federal electives in exchange for things like ‘common security’.
Actually property is the most valuable, and dare I say it sacred possession a man can own. Edmund Burke had this to say on its benefits:
‘With the division of property and the class system, he(Burke)…believed that it kept the monarch in check to the needs of the classes beneath the monarch. Since property largely aligned or defined divisions of social class, class too was seen as a natural part of a social agreement that the setting of persons into different classes is to the mutual benefit of all subjects.’
But you don’t know anything about the history of absolute monarchs so how could you come to such a conclusion? Are you familiar with the Russian Czars? Louis XVI? Napoleon? James I and Charles VI? Frederick Wilhelm? I strongly suspect you have no idea of the consequences of what you are flippantly advocating.
You certainly sound like one.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Here:
The main clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are:
‘Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
and here:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/ [/quote]
-The 14th Amendment is only saying that the government can’t take your property unless it decides to take your property.
-The Second Amendment, as clearly as it is written, has failed to protect the right to bear arms(one must be granted the privilege of owning the same arms the military possesses, etc.), so how does a single reference, within a single section of a large amendment do anything at all?
[quote]
I’m literally speechless. The public doesn’t exist? Society doesn’t exist? Have you taken your seroquel today? Look out the window. See those people? Those are real people.[/quote]
-I never questioned the existence of people. I asked what the “public” is. It certainly has no rights. You can’t point to it. Individuals exist, individuals have rights-groups do not.
[quote]
No, your lack of political philosophy is exposing your ignorance. Mob rule is ‘direct democracy’ as practiced by the Athenians. The US and every western country on earth has ‘representative democracy’. That’s where the imaginary people outside your window vote regularly on who they wish to govern them. Again, the social contract comes into play as they give up certain rights to these municipal, state and federal electives in exchange for things like ‘common security’.[/quote]
-Please explain how what we have differs in any significant way from direct democracy. At one point, when only male property owners were voting, the difference may have been significant…now, not so much.
-The largest mob gets to pick the ruler.
-I don’t remember agreeing to this contract in which I relinquish my rights.
[quote]
Actually property is the most valuable, and dare I say it sacred possession a man can own. Edmund Burke had this to say on its benefits:
‘With the division of property and the class system, he(Burke)…believed that it kept the monarch in check to the needs of the classes beneath the monarch. Since property largely aligned or defined divisions of social class, class too was seen as a natural part of a social agreement that the setting of persons into different classes is to the mutual benefit of all subjects.’[/quote]
-You didn’t really dispute anything here. I’m not sure you understand the concept of market value. When the government assesses your property value, pays you its assessed value, but will forcibly remove you if you don’t accept(or aggress against you in other ways), that is not the market value. Market value is the sale price voluntarily reached by the parties to the sale.
[quote]
But you don’t know anything about the history of absolute monarchs so how could you come to such a conclusion? Are you familiar with the Russian Czars? Louis XVI? Napoleon? James I and Charles VI? Frederick Wilhelm? I strongly suspect you have no idea of the consequences of what you are flippantly advocating.[/quote]
-the Russians eventually rebelled against the czar
-Louis XVI was guillotined
-Napoleon was overthrown and exiled
-Don’t know if James I was all that bad
-How bad was Charles VI?
-Overthrowing three out of your group’s not bad. I’ll take those odds over the odds of a rebellion from a society that accepts mob rule as just.
[quote]
I’m just not an anarchist. [/quote]
-Good for you, but you didn’t answer my question. Why did you feel the need to say, “And BTW I am a VERY strong advocate for property rights and limited government power.”? Not that I don’t appreciate your telling me. Without you pointing that out, I never would have known that about you.
[quote]
You certainly sound like one.[/quote]
-Like one…what?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m having a hard time understudying why blacks have so many social problems and so on. I’m sure they’d be much better off in Liberia than the US.[/quote]
You don’t understand because you are ignorant. You bring up the Irish as if to prove some point but, the US had a Catholic president of Irish descent while black men were getting lynched and black children were getting killed in church bombings. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, not 1864, not 1880, not 1900, not 1920, not 1950. What were the Irish able to do in the US during that time? A lot more than blacks could. Don’t talk about US social issues if you have no clue about US history.