2) So you don't think that it would be wrong to own other people if it was good for business? (Which it clearly was as otherwise slave-trading could not have been profitable and would have died out far earlier)
The idea that we are saying slavery is wrong 'just cos' is simply ludicrous.
When you own a human being you rob him of all rights. The right to work
for a sum he has agreed to, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to
his very own life. I can not think of a clearer cut issue of morality.
The fact that you can not grasp this is beyond disturbing. It's becoming
clear that the accusations of racism that have been regularly put to you were
far too kind. For you it's not about prejudice toward those of a different skin
colour it's about a deeply rooted disregard for the human race as a whole. Your
own happiness or the profit making undertakings of the upper class seem to
trump the basic rights of anyone else. It's flat out Fascism. I'm
starting to come around to Mr. Gardner's thinking. God help us if someone comes
here and takes this to represent what Ayn Rand was getting at when she talked
about the virtue of self interest.
In the Dark Ages in Europe, and to a lesser extent Britain, slavery was replaced by serfdom. Serfs were similar to slaves in many ways. The Serf was tied down to a certain area of land, and worked in similar conditions to slaves who also worked on farms. Serfdom was a consequence of the feudal economic system in Europe at the time. It relied entirely upon agricultural output, so serfdom was considered inevitable. Life as a serf wasn’t easy, and many rebellions broke out because of it. Russia was the last country to abolish serfdom, which came about in 1860 under Tsar Alexander II. In most countries, however, it was abolished hundreds of years earlier.
Calling black people negroes, this bullshit about slavery, calling for ethnic cleansing of my race amongst others, along with the rest of your endless dribble sickens me. You're the most despicable person I've never met, I hope to keep it that way and that my good friends and family never meet you. Don't get me wrong, like most good people I like nasty humour, the well delivered bad joke - it's just that you're not funny at all. Having you on this site sickens me.
You're still missing the point Elijah. There's been no real argument that economic considerations aren't useful or necessary, but whether you realise it or not, by pooh poohing such 'feelings' about ideas such as individual sovereignty, liberty, non initiation of force, you've left yourself in a position where slavery is a morally acceptable practice so long as it is profitable. God, you even seemed to be suggesting that those Objectivist ideals were part of your socialist programming in schools conspiracy!
And why would that be offensive Lance? I consider economical pressures far more likely than a sudden moral insight after 300 years of slavery. Let's face it, when business is slow you can fire half your staff and mothball your machines but you can't mothball your slaves? So abolishing slavery sounds like a pretty good way to solve that problem.
Ipso facto, here is a man saying that profitable slavery was a moral and good thing, and anyone who disagreed, disagreed only because socialists had programmed them at state schools with crazy Objectivist and libertarian ideas such as "non initiation of force" and individual sovereignty. Left me rather exasperated to be honest. And not once have I attacked Elijah with any slurs or name calling. I've kept it strictly about the argument. Why? I LIKE Elijah, he's witty intelligent and bloody charming.
According to Holmes, “the nature of legal language can obscure and hide the social interests and social advantages to some that a law promotes.” Holmes view about legal language is that law promotes social goodness for people but the manner in which the language of law is interpreted can be a block to providing equal justice to all human beings....
Don't you get it Elijah? Those words, in the way you have put them together in those sentences, means that you are expressing your moral sanction of slavery. Slavery must have been profitable at one stage, otherwise it would never have 'flourished' as an 'industry' was it morally right and good then? The slave traders, shipping slaves to America and England were making profits, and profit is the basis of morality, what they were doing must have been morally good right? If not, why not? By your own rationale profitable slavery is good. Anything profitable is good. Because the rights of others are of no concern to you, they are just something that the dreaded socialist boogeymen have programmed in to pliable young minds, with silly concepts such as individual sovereignty, non initiation of force, the fact that UNDER NO FUCKING CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT RIGHT OR MORAL TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. PROFITABLE OR FUCKING NOT.
did I say that profitable slavery was a good thing...certain people are trying to create something out of less than nothing by twisting my comments in that way.
23, 1861, according to “San Antonio’s German Immigrants and Secession,” a paper published on the University of the Incarnate Word’s website.Statewide, only about 24 percent of Texans voted against secession.Slaves that did live in San Antonio primarily worked in households, though some were thought to be cowboys on ranches, said John Reynolds, a history professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio.Working conditions for slaves in the Alamo City were less brutal than if they had been forced to work on plantations in East Texas, Reynolds said.
Stop evading. Either fess up that profitable slavery is in your estimation, a good and proper thing. Or admit that you've got mixed up somewhere.