Neo-Nazi wins Primary for GOP in Illinois 3rd congressional district

[Bootstoots]

That claim is true, FWIW, Democrats did own slaves from 1828-1865. The phrasing doesn't deny that non-Democrats owned slaves prior to the existence of the Democratic Party, or for that matter that some Whigs owned slaves at the same time Democrats owned them. The other claim is the dubious one - it's not clear what would constitute libertarianism in the context of antebellum America.

The main problem, though, is that it's irrelevant to anything involving 21st century politics, because the parties and relevant issues have changed so as to be entirely different from anything they were in the 19th century. Why bother stating it?

 

[Berzerker]

Because TimsuptosupportinDemocrats said libertarians owned other people.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

it's not clear what would constitute libertarianism in the context of antebellum America.

Figures like Lysander Spooner would probably count. He fought protested licensing laws by insisting on practicing as a lawyer without college credentials. He protested government monopolies by running a very successful free market mail company. He put forward an ultra-literal and idiosyncratic reading of the constitution in order to argue against slavery, and also donated lots of his own funds towards arming slaves and encouraging them to rise up against their masters in a Haitian-style revolution. When the Civil War did come, he would argue that the Confederate states have a natural right to be free from the Federal government and even to wage a war with that aim, and that this right is derived from the same natural right as justifies their slaves rising up to kill any masters who won't recognize their freedom.

Many Locofocos could also be considered proto-libertarians.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because TimsuptosupportinDemocrats said libertarians owned other people.

No, libertarians want to own slaves that they don't consider to be people. That's the ultimate problem with the modern American "libertarian." They are all about "individual freedom" as long as they are the individual, and don't care eff-all about anyone else...making the anyone else effectively 'sub-human' from their perspective. That's the moral basis of slavery...the slaves are sub-human. So, once we filter out your lie about what I said, which had NOTHING to do with ancient history until you tried, as usual, to go there; we arrive at "that works out really well for libertarians that own their neighbors," whether that ownership is of the form "my right to a gun outweighs your right to live" or "my right to a 'cultural heritage' outweighs your right to security from armed mobs" or "my right to speak allows me to scream in your ears" or whatever form it happens to take at the moment.

 

[Berzerker]

so you're enslaved when libertarians dont pay for what you want?

 

[rah]

There's a Urban Dictionary definition of libertarian that just says "a Republican with a bong"

Damn, I was really a libertarian when I was younger. Who would have figured that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

so you're enslaved when libertarians dont pay for what you want?

This was an even bigger red herring leap than your efforts at turning the conversation towards ancient history that you turned out to know nothing about.

 

[Berzerker]

libertarians want to own slaves that they don't consider to be people.

Democrats owned slaves, libertarians freed them

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

libertarians freed them

Don't confuse modern U.S. libertarianism with 19th century U.S. individualism...

 

[Berzerker]

I didn't (see the past tense?)... but has something changed?

 

[Lexicus]

I didn't (see the past tense?)... but has something changed?

At some point they began arguing that a "free society" would permit "voluntary" slavery on the basis of freedom of contract. Free-soilers in the 19th century would have laughed themselves silly at such a dumb argument.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Democrats owned slaves, libertarians freed them

There is only one way to respond to this absurdist revision of history. What a crock.

 

[Broken_Erika]

'cause everyone knows that Hillary and Obama are 110% responsible for the actions of Jefferson Davis and the entire civil war!

 

[Berzerker]

At some point they began arguing that a "free society" would permit "voluntary" slavery on the basis of freedom of contract. Free-soilers in the 19th century would have laughed themselves silly at such a dumb argument.

Maybe we're using different definitions, slaves weren't free to volunteer and sign a contract. Is working an 8 hour shift for Goodyear slavery?

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

I didn't (see the past tense?)... but has something changed?

At some point they began arguing that a "free society" would permit "voluntary" slavery on the basis of freedom of contract. Free-soilers in the 19th century would have laughed themselves silly at such a dumb argument.

Exactly. The only slavery that Individualists of the 19th century were concerned with was "wage-slavery". Most of those who were abolitionists would not have considered themselves libertarian by either the 19th or the 20/21st century definitions.

Most of the time when this argument is made its by those who are anachronistically projecting their views onto political leaders from the past.

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, I'm describing abolitionists as libertarians... As opposed to the Democrats who owned slaves. That doesn't mean every abolitionist was libertarian on a range of issues, just that abolition was libertarian in nature.

 

[Lexicus]

Abolition was the greatest violation of property rights/government redistribution of wealth in US history. Calling abolitionists "libertarians" is every bit as laughable as claiming that counting slaves in the census would make their lives better.

 

[Berzerker]

Abolition was the greatest violation of property rights/government redistribution of wealth in US history. Calling abolitionists "libertarians" is every bit as laughable as claiming that counting slaves in the census would make their lives better.

The Indians (and slaves) would like a word with you about violating property rights. Will counting illegal aliens in the census improve their lives? Why...or why not? I cant call abolitionists Democrats, so libertarian will do just fine.

 

[GinandTonic]

Strange. From the outside the libertarians seem the direct successors of the slave holders in cultural and ideological terms while the democrats seem the direct successors of the abolitionists in cultural and ideological terms. I guess their ideologies and actions arent that important.

 

[metalhead]

No, what people did 160 years ago under political labels is the only acceptable means for judging people using those labels in the present day.