• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you be a slave owner and a libertarian at the same time?

Can you be a slave owner and a libertarian at the same time?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • No

    Votes: 16 57.1%

  • Total voters
    28
i cant be a slave owner and a human at the same time
 
What century are you folks living in again???

Can you be a former slave and own slaves? Can you be black and own black slaves. Can you be a democrat and really pretend to give a **** about minorities?

Such questions....

No one's asking if it's physically possible to be a slave-owning "libertarian", but if it's consistent with your proclaimed political philosophy.
 
i'm wondering what ideology would find slavery as consistent with it's tenants....

the ones that values the needs of the many over the needs of the individual would make the most sense.
 
way to grammar nazi

Nice conflation there kid. If you want to be respected while debating a subject, don't make silly mistakes. Tenants in place of tenets, tow the line instead of toe the line, reign when you mean rein or the reverse, are the most common errors that I see as I read, not only here and other online sites but also in the print media and books.
 
Nice conflation there kid. If you want to be respected while debating a subject, don't make silly mistakes. Tenants in place of tenets, tow the line instead of toe the line, reign when you mean rein or the reverse, are the most common errors that I see as I read, not only here and other online sites but also in the print media and books.

if you want to be respected, debate the subject, and don't waste our time on obvious and simple grammar and spelling errors as you just did. nobody is impressed you caught a minor mistake that caused no confusion to those in the thread.
 
Nice conflation there kid. If you want to be respected while debating a subject, don't make silly mistakes. Tenants in place of tenets, tow the line instead of toe the line, reign when you mean rein or the reverse, are the most common errors that I see as I read, not only here and other online sites but also in the print media and books.

You know what he meant. If you disagree with what he said, state your argument, or state nothing at all if you wish to be respected yourself.
 
Well you could, you'd just be a flaming hypocrite.

Hypocrite and Libertarian are not mutually exclusive terms. As many modern day Libertarians prove on a daily basis.
 
if you want to be respected, debate the subject, and don't waste our time on obvious and simple grammar and spelling errors as you just did. nobody is impressed you caught a minor mistake that caused no confusion to those in the thread.

I have been debating the subject but I find it difficult to give any credence to the writing of those who are unable to use proper English to justify their position.

Ooops - I almost wrote something that might have been construed as a personal attack, nevermind.

Originally posted by ARealConservative
Originally Posted by Thrilla
i'm wondering what ideology would find slavery as consistent with it's tenants....
the ones that values the needs of the many over the needs of the individual would make the most sense.


Whaaa...? (incredulity) In those regions of the Confederacy where slave labour was the dominant force, the majority of the population was often of African origin and were slaves. Not all of the South was like that, much of the South consisted of subsidence farming but in the coastal counties of South Carolina, parts of Mississippi and Louisiana along the Mississippi River where cotton was grown, there were large areas where there were many more African slaves than European whites. A tiny percentage of the Southern population benefited from slavery which would kinda overthrow the premise stated by ARealConservative.
 
I have been debating the subject but I find it difficult to give any credence to the writing of those who are unable to use proper English to justify their position.

Ooops - I almost wrote something that might have been construed as a personal attack, nevermind.

So based on what you've written here so far, what makes anything you say credible? Outside of your obvious misuse of the word conflation, you've simply come here to attack other posters instead of debating the topic at hand.
 
Can you be a slave owner and a libertarian at the same time?[/SIZE][/FONT]



Yes.If you do not view your slaves as human beings.If you do not view a certain group as human beings its real easy to hold contradictory views, for example many abortionists are for human rights but they do not view the unborn as human.
 
blacks were considered human...just an inferior form of human.
lol
:doh

Tell yourself what ever you want thunder. It doesn't change a thing that has bee said.
 
Well you could, you'd just be a flaming hypocrite.

Or simply believe that minorities aren't fully human.

The correct answer is Yes.

You are assuming that every libertarian believes all humanoids on this planet are the same and therefore equal and entitled to the same.
 
No one's asking if it's physically possible to be a slave-owning "libertarian", but if it's consistent with your proclaimed political philosophy.
no. He was clearly asking about the founders. So the answer depends on how they saw things.


if you want to be respected, debate the subject, and don't waste our time on obvious and simple grammar and spelling errors as you just did. nobody is impressed you caught a minor mistake that caused no confusion to those in the thread.
Or how about not making a big deal about someone being corrected and instead learn from the mistake, and move on?
 
And?
If the others are not considered human, self-ownership does not enter the picture.
Civil Rights are egalitarian by nature, so this "concern" is a non-issue.
Civil Rights?

We are speaking during the time of the founders and how they viewed things.

Secondly. There are no Civil Rights to be applied if one is considered to be not human, not fully human, just humanoid, etc...
 
In the context of the US population demographics.
You understand that the word itself does not just mean a minority in population right?
But entails a difference from the rest?

3a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment
Minority - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



Hence, part of the population being considered not human, or not human enough.
So a libertarian, if that is what they believed, would have be no conflict.
 
You understand that the word itself does not just mean a minority in population right?
But entails a difference from the rest?

3a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment
Minority - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I clarified when asked. If you need further clarification, in the context I was writing about, it would be white non hispanic population groups.

Hence, part of the population being considered not human, or not human enough.
So a libertarian, if that is what they believed, would have be no conflict.

Yes, a racist libertarian would not see a conflict ...
 
I'm a libertarian, but I don't think Republicans should vote because they're sub-human.
 
Back
Top Bottom