Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 26 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Socially Responsible Capitalism. (Read 1198 times)
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #20 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:58am
Print Post  
Jeff, that was a lot of words to avoid the central issue which was that Lincoln himself - the "Great Emancipator" wrote that while her personally opposed slavery, his goal as president was not to end it.  His goal was to keep the southern states part of the Union.  If that was the goal of congress and the citizens of the north, that doesn't make him any less culpable as leader.  I have to wonder how dedicated the northerners were to prosecuting a war against their southern neighbors since Lincoln congress had to resort to a draft (slavery) to get the soldiers to fight that war.

Quote:
Lincoln understood that the slaves owned in states that had not left the Union were in border states where sentiment for ending slavery was not as strong as in the rest of the U.S. and that declaring those slaves to be free by proclamation could lead to those states seceding and joining the Confederacy, which was seen as counterproductive rather than helpful to the prosecution of the war that had already begun.
Then why would his strategy not have been to promise all states not to end slavery?  Then he would have won the war without having to fight it.

Quote:
No, I oppose slavery. And it isn't "treating" people like animals, it's owning people as if they were animals. A distinction I think it's worthwhile to make.
I see no distinction in that at all except that owners often treated their lower animals better than their human slaves.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #21 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:11am
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:58am:
Jeff, that was a lot of words to avoid the central issue which was that Lincoln himself...
The central issue at the time in America was slavery. Slave states had been threatening to secede over the issue of slavery for years before Lincoln was elected.

There would have been a war over slavery in America even if Jefferson Davis had been elected President of the United States instead of Lincoln... And you know how much of a "Great Emancipator" Davis was.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #22 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22am
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 7:58am:
I see no distinction in that at all except that owners often treated their lower animals better than their human slaves.
Slaves were the most valuable "livestock" that slave owners owned. They were no more likely to treat them inhumanely than they were to treat their horses or dogs inhumanely... Of course some people will treat their animals badly.
If you have a dog that insists on breaking it's leash and escaping to eat the neighbors chickens, you might treat it badly... But if is a "good dog" and obeys and serves you, you will certainly treat it as a valuable animal. You might even breed it and sell it's pups at high prices, because they come from good breeding stock.

The distinction is in that people are not "livestock".

Whether you treat them like younger sisters or like a mean dog or your prize Quarter horse is not the issue.

It is viewing them as animals to be bought and sold and bred and worked that is the great evil, whether you treat them well or not.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #23 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:53am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:22am:
Slaves were the most valuable "livestock" that slave owners owned. They were no more likely to treat them inhumanely than they were to treat their horses or dogs inhumanely... Of course some people will treat their animals badly.
If you have a dog that insists on breaking it's leash and escaping to eat the neighbors chickens, you might treat it badly... But if is a "good dog" and obeys and serves you, you will certainly treat it as a valuable animal. You might even breed it and sell it's pups at high prices, because they come from good breeding stock.

The distinction is in that people are not "livestock".

Whether you treat them like younger sisters or like a mean dog or your prize Quarter horse is not the issue.

It is viewing them as animals to be bought and sold and bred and worked that is the great evil, whether you treat them well or not.


Wow.

Ok, so I'm going to let go the issue of whether slave owners treated their human livestock better or worse than their non-human livestock so that I can ask you to address the issue you seem to be avoiding.

President Lincoln, the Union congress and presumably the citizens of the northern states fully supported slavery, correct?  You can say, "well, yes . . .  but only for the war effort" but that doesn't change the fact that they supported slavery.  Since you seem to be agreeing with them, you support slavery as long as there is a need for it. 

You also support conscription, I take it?  Isn't it ironic that our media whined for seven years about how "unpopular" "Bush's wars" were but neither Bush nor any Republican in congress ever suggested that we needed conscription to fight them.  Why did the Union "need" to conscript slave-soldiers if the people of the Northern states were so intent on keeping the southern states under the rule of the Union?

Was the Civil War "about slavery?"  It was one slaveholding country using slave laborers and conscripted slave soldiers to invade another slaveholding country which fought back using conscripted slave soldiers.

So there was slavery involved in that war but the issue in that war was state government versus a centralized federal government and more importantly whether membership in the Union was voluntary or by force.  Force won as it often does.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5925
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #24 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 8:53am:
Wow.

Ok, so I'm going to let go the issue of whether slave owners treated their human livestock better or worse than their non-human livestock so that I can ask you to address the issue you seem to be avoiding.

President Lincoln, the Union congress and presumably the citizens of the northern states fully supported slavery, correct?  You can say, "well, yes . . .  but only for the war effort" but that doesn't change the fact that they supported slavery.  Since you seem to be agreeing with them, you support slavery as long as there is a need for it. 

You also support conscription, I take it?  Isn't it ironic that our media whined for seven years about how "unpopular" "Bush's wars" were but neither Bush nor any Republican in congress ever suggested that we needed conscription to fight them.  Why did the Union "need" to conscript slave-soldiers if the people of the Northern states were so intent on keeping the southern states under the rule of the Union?

Was the Civil War "about slavery?"  It was one slaveholding country using slave laborers and conscripted slave soldiers to invade another slaveholding country which fought back using conscripted slave soldiers.

So there was slavery involved in that war but the issue in that war was state government versus a centralized federal government and more importantly whether membership in the Union was voluntary or by force.  Force won as it often does.


Wow! Your reasoning on Lincoln and the north supporting slavery is pretty farfetched!

I'm not at all interested in debated that point with you, because it's ridiculous. But I'm very interested in keeping an eye on you to find out more about what makes you tick.

Never underestimate the hypocrisy of Americans in the southern states!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #25 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:37pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 1:21pm:
Wow! Your reasoning on Lincoln and the north supporting slavery is pretty farfetched!
My reasoning that because Lincoln supported slavery, he supported slavery?  How is that far-fetched?


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5925
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #26 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:45pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:37pm:
My reasoning that because Lincoln supported slavery, he supported slavery?  How is that far-fetched?




I see 'supporting slavery' as very different from 'conscription' and so not seeing it that way is what I call farfetched. We can agree to disagree on that but I would prefer that you argue your point.

I learn more about you from your arguments on those sort of subjects. Especially on slavery, but granted I have a lot to learn about you on that!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #27 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:48pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:45pm:
I see 'supporting slavery' as very different from 'conscription'
What's the difference?

Quote:
and so not seeing it that way is what I call farfetched. We can agree to disagree on that but I would prefer that you argue your point.
Lincoln not only supported the slavery with another name which is conscription, he also supported slavery by its true name in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri.  Ironically he supported that in the name of states' rights.  Go figure . . .

Quote:
I learn more about you from your arguments on those sort of subjects. Especially on slavery, but granted I have a lot to learn about you on that!
You sure do if you agree with young people being enslaved for the purposes of being sent to die on foreign battlefields as Lincoln did to non-wealthy U.S. citizens.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4756
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #28 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:56pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
A socially responsible government is first and foremost one that does not over tax its citizens.

Bam!  Nailed it.    Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5925
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #29 - Dec 5th, 2017 at 3:03pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Dec 5th, 2017 at 2:56pm:
Bam!  Nailed it.    Smiley


It was good! Just don't take it as the only consideration.

And it's good because it can lead to a more in depth discussion. We'll get there!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 26
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy