So, what's wrong with Libertarianism?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The US government caused something to happen that started 250 years before the US government came into existence?

Sorry, there is no argument to be made that slavery would not have existed had no government ever acted to cause it.

The government protected the right of slavers to own property, i.e., slaves. Further, it helped to track down renegade slaves and return them, and actively enforced the laws that perpetuated slavery. Had it not enforced the right of one white man to own multiple black men and women with such severity as it did, slavery would not have lasted the week. The thing about enslavement is, people don't really like it, and are only restricted from ending it by extreme duress.

The US government had the chance to end slavery in 1787. It didn't. Instead, it perpetuated it.

 

[Cutlass]

The government protected the right of slavers to own property, i.e., slaves. Further, it helped to track down renegade slaves and return them, and actively enforced the laws that perpetuated slavery. Had it not enforced the right of one white man to own multiple black men and women with such severity as it did, slavery would not have lasted the week. The thing about enslavement is, people don't really like it, and are only restricted from ending it by extreme duress.

The US government had the chance to end slavery in 1787. It didn't. Instead, it perpetuated it.

Nope. The government did not choose to end it. But it would have existed if the government did not exist at all. Certainly slavers used government when and how they could. But at no time was government ever necessary for slavery to exist. It existed by raw force all by itself. And at no time did government, least of all the US government, cause slavery to exist.

 

[Hygro]

aaaaaugh Cutlass and Cheezy+Parc, all of you are saying correct things. I'm watching skew lines yelling at each other to get out the way but your statements aren't in each others' ways.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Government can be a solution. It's really the only possible solution. If government does not act, then there is no other solution that stands a snowballs chance in hell.

We can watch that failure playing out right before our eyes:




http://www.cnbc.com/id/100679902

If it was at all possible for your idea to work, we would not be watching it fail right now.






I haven't got the smallest clue of what you think you mean by that.

So what you'r saying is:
a. the masses can't organize themselves (in a lawsuit)
b. so they should organize themselves (in a government)

With the Ouroboros question I was referring at a hilarious post by TF, previously in this thread:

I'm suggesting that your point devours itself; that you are the Ouroboros of dodgy political logics. (....)

But you should interpret that more as a joke about TF, who uses these words ;-)

 

[Tahuti]

It's certainly not, because countless nations have laid claim to the law of the sea and sent navies to enforce it, so it's absolutely untrue to say there is no law and no law enforcement in the Red Sea.

I meant within the framework of the Somali Xeer system.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

I thought Muslims were "acceptable casualties" in your estimation? Given your callous disregard for human life when it is convenient for you, do these dead bodies amount to anything more than ammunition to you?

If that's the case, why should we feel any pity for this unworthy lot?

Kind of ad hominem, buddy. And definitely off topic.


On topic, @Cutlass: doesn't Bangladesh have a government capable of changing these terrible working conditions?

 

[Agent327]

Kind of ad hominem, buddy. And definitely off topic.

That seems to be PCH's specialty.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nope. The government did not choose to end it. But it would have existed if the government did not exist at all. Certainly slavers used government when and how they could. But at no time was government ever necessary for slavery to exist. It existed by raw force all by itself. And at no time did government, least of all the US government, cause slavery to exist.

Why did the Southern planters pour so much time and energy into ensuring the legal entrenchment of slavery, and the effective enforcement of slavery laws at both state and federal levels, if it could not possibly have made a different to whether or not slavery survived?

 

[El_Machinae]

But a government is a solution right? So if many individuals can agree an a common standpoint (as in: a law) why wouldn't they be able to agree on a common lawsuit?

A lawsuit to do what?

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

A lawsuit to do what?

To force a company to stop poluting for instance.

 

[Cutlass]

Why did the Southern planters pour so much time and energy into ensuring the legal entrenchment of slavery, and the effective enforcement of slavery laws at both state and federal levels, if it could not possibly have made a different to whether or not slavery survived?

Rent seeking. It was never necessary for government to get involved to support slavery. But it certainly made it easier.

To force a company to stop poluting for instance.

In what manner would it do that? What's your enforcement mechanism?

On topic, @Cutlass: doesn't Bangladesh have a government capable of changing these terrible working conditions?

Do they have a representative government where all the adults have a free and fair vote? But in this case even that would not be sufficient, because other nations do not. The business will go where the buyers can force the lowest possible costs. And those lowest possible costs will cause unsafe working conditions where workers are killed and injured on a routine basis. Bangladesh, having no better options, accepts the deaths as the price of having any export industries at all.

So long as there is demand, there will be supply. And the demand for the cheapest possible labor, no matter what the risk, never goes away. There is no market solution here. .

So what you'r saying is:
a. the masses can't organize themselves (in a lawsuit)
b. so they should organize themselves (in a government)

You don't understand just how limited lawsuits are. First, there still has to be a law to apply. So without government they can do nothing. Second, the government still has to operate the courts. And third, the government still has to enforce the court's decrees. But most importantly, the power relationship between rich and poor is far worse in the courts than it is in a government with free and open elections.

With the Ouroboros question I was referring at a hilarious post by TF, previously in this thread:


But you should interpret that more as a joke about TF, who uses these words ;-)

I have no idea what he meant either

 

[ParkCungHee]

Nope. The government did not choose to end it. But it would have existed if the government did not exist at all. Certainly slavers used government when and how they could. But at no time was government ever necessary for slavery to exist. It existed by raw force all by itself. And at no time did government, least of all the US government, cause slavery to exist.

What exactly, again, is wrong with slavery?
By what means did these slaves have grounds to the position the state placed them in?

 

[Cutlass]

What exactly, again, is wrong with slavery?

I'll let you figure that one out all by yourself.

By what means did these slaves have grounds to the position the state placed them in?

English translation?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'll let you figure that one out all by yourself.

I have, but you have rejected that. Again, if you cannot imagine a reason to care about slavery yourself, why should I care about your posturing?

English translation?

Sorry, typo. What gives slaves the right to object to their station. The state, the source of human rights, decreed them slaves.

What makes a slave objecting to his position in anyway acceptable behavior?

 

[Cutlass]

I have, but you have rejected that. Again, if you cannot imagine a reason to care about slavery yourself, why should I care about your posturing?

What in the hell are you even talking about?

Sorry, typo. What gives slaves the right to object to their station. The state, the source of human rights, decreed them slaves.

Private individuals declared them slaves. The state wasn't involved in that. The state eventually ratified private actions. It did not at any time cause this to happen.

What makes a slave objecting to his position in anyway acceptable behavior?

Just for hahas.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What in the hell are you even talking about?

You have avoided giving a reason that you object to slavery. You have avoided giving a reason you object to the death of people. When it is convenient, you decline to object to these things at all.

I am beginning to question whether or not you actually object to these things, or like so many libertarians you revile, you simply know that these things are agreed to be bad, and therefor make a useful cudgel in your argument.

If you don't provide me with a reason for objecting to slavery, I'm going to take that as an admission that political expedience is the only reason.

Private individuals declared them slaves. The state wasn't involved in that. The state eventually ratified private actions. It did not at any time cause this to happen.

Right, and once the state had done that, wouldn't any slave questioning their station be trying to enact a Somalia?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

You have avoided giving a reason that you object to slavery. You have avoided giving a reason you object to the death of people. When it is convenient, you decline to object to these things at all.

I don't see how his personal views would have any affect on this particular discussion. Considering this is about the government's role, not about the rightness/wrong of government policies?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't see how his personal views would have any affect on this particular discussion.

It's neccesary to make his argument intelligible.

If I simply stated "The State is unnecessary, because there are 50 stripes on the American Flag" you would want an explanation on why that's important, why that's relevant, and why I feel this is a strong argument. If I responded to questions on this matter with lines like "you tell me" I could not be regarded as arguing in good faith.

So far, Cutlass has only offered vague platitudes and has refused to elaborate on the substance of his argument. If he can't mount a moral argument against slavery, then he can't mount a moral defense of the state.

 

[Traitorfish]

Rent seeking.

In what sense? Slaves were used as plantation labourers, not as tenant farmers. (Even sharecropping is in essence a piece-rate system, rather than a system of rents.)

It was never necessary for government to get involved to support slavery. But it certainly made it easier.

You think private entities could have successfully suppressed slave revolts?

 

[ParkCungHee]

You think private entities could have successfully suppressed slave revolts?

Especially while remaining private entities.