• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,299
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Whenever I hear a Ron Paul supporter praising the American demigods or more commonly know as the Founding Fathers - they sometimes refer to them as "Libertarians". Now, before you go calling this a "straw man" here is the big enchilada himself saying the founders were "Libertarian":

Ron Paul: The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

Ron Paul said:
I happen to believe the founders were Libertarians. They didn’t want to regulate the market nor did they want to regulate personal lifestyles. And they had a non-intervention foreign policy. So that’s libertarianism and I think people who want to use that word usually want to use to that make us look negative. But it’s getting to the point where believing in liberty is not necessarily a negative anymore. I think we’ve made some progress.

Now, obviously I acknowledge that not ALL the Founders were slave owners. I also acknowledge that there is a possibility that maybe Paul wasn't referring to ALL the founders. However one big name that sticks out in my mind when referring to the "founders" is Jefferson and I doubt such an important figure in US history wasn't who Paul was referring to when he said "the founders". "Libertarians" like Paul LOVE to call out Jefferson when discussing personal freedoms. He's a Libertarian All-Star. I decided to look around and what do you know there were Libertarians comparing Paul to Jefferson and crediting Jefferson for modern Libertarianism. Not only that but they were doing it on officially sanctioned Ron Paul websites:

Ron Paul is Thomas Jefferson*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

The elite political class looked with disdain, and now looks with a certain measure of bemusement, upon Dr. Paul. Paul represents the re-emergence of a great American tradition. That tradition reawakens in the person of Ron Paul, who has a fair claim to be our era’s Thomas Jefferson…

Now I'm no history scholar. However, Wikipedia? That's a great tool right there. You can look up quick definitions for words you don't really understand and get a rough idea of what they mean:

Here is the basic definition of slavery:

Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[SUP][1][/SUP] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demandcompensation. Historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by many societies; in more recent times slavery has been outlawed in most societies but continues through the practices of debt bondage, indentured servitude, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.[SUP][2][/SUP]


Here is the basic definition of Libertarian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a type of political philosophy that emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.


Now, the underlined sections are the ones which have led me to believe that slavery and Libertarianism are not compatible. One is based on the freedom of association, the other is forced. This made me wonder, are Libertarians completely mental when considering Jefferson a "Libertarian" or are they right and it is possible to be both a slave owner AND a Libertarian? Either way, the second question was the safest one to ask so I'll repeat it:

Can you be a slave owner and a libertarian at the same time?
 
Last edited:
The correct answer is No.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

So there are Libertarians who are for personal freedoms... just not for certain people?

Also, you may want to be careful how you use that word "humanoid" - a person is human, a robot is a humanoid.
 
Last edited:
Did my edit answer your question?
 
So there are Libertarians who are for personal freedoms... just not for certain people?

Also, you may want to be careful how you use that word "humanoid" - a person is human, a robot is a humanoid.
Used correctly.

Hence why they would be treated differently.
 
Used correctly.

Hence why they would be treated differently.

Oh so what you're saying is that some people aren't really people?
 
Obviously, one CANNOT claim to be a Libertarian, and also support the right to own-slaves.

Slavery & Libertarianism are mutually exclusive, as slavery deprives a human being of almost all fundamental rights & freedoms..that are cherished by Libertarianism.
 
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....
 
I would consider many of them to be classical liberals.

I will say that the fact that some owned slaves does not make them pure classical liberals. At the same time, there is no reason they cannot be considered classical liberals in other aspects.

I divide them up into three classes:

1-Slave owners, knowingly owning humans.

2-Slave owners, unknowingly owning humans(they believed they were inferior creatures).

3-Non-slave owners/abolitionists.

Each one of those groups has to be judged differently, IMO.
 
I think resolving the question does come down to the matter of whether the libertarian sees another being as an equal. If the other being is not thought of as an equal, in fact not really human, then what is the difference between owning a dog or a cat and owning a being that looks like a human but really isn't? - in the libertarian's specific belief system.
 
Last edited:
There's different types of libertarians, but I don't see even the worst of objectivist libertarians being pro slavery.

But wouldn't a true free market economy inherently require a lack of regulation over the labor force?
 
I've often pondered the question: Where does the libertarian draw the line between his beliefs and those of the anarchist?
 
I voted YES. It seems to me that a small libertarain government shouldn't be concerned about like slavery. If one finds himself a slave then it's probably his own fault and why should the government come to his rescue. And if one owns slaves it's because one has been sucessful. And there needn't be a single level of slavery or type, just as before. For instance one could fall into slavery for not paying bills, with the type of slavery would depend on the contract.
 
But wouldn't a true free market economy inherently require a lack of regulation over the labor force?

I'm a moderate, so I have no problem with necessary regulation as long as it doesn't hurt the employer. However, I believe the train of thought is that such regulation comes naturally through what the employees will and will not tolerate. No employees, no production, and ultimately, no business.
 
I voted YES. It seems to me that a small libertarain government shouldn't be concerned about like slavery. If one finds himself a slave then it's probably his own fault and why should the government come to his rescue. And if one owns slaves it's because one has been sucessful. And there needn't be a single level of slavery or type, just as before. For instance one could fall into slavery for not paying bills, with the type of slavery would depend on the contract.

You're forgetting one thing: The Libertarian doctrine of self-ownership.
 
I'm a moderate, so I have no problem with necessary regulation as long as it doesn't hurt the employer.

Didn't outlawing slavery "harm" the slave-owning businessmen by simple virtue of eliminating their work force?

However, I believe the train of thought is that such regulation comes naturally through what the employees will and will not tolerate. No employees, no production, and ultimately, no business.

Slaves aren't employees, though. Ergo, the idea that "no employees = no production" is demonstrably false.
 
can you be a person of above average intellect and the op of this thread at the same time?
 
Didn't outlawing slavery "harm" the slave-owning businessmen by simple virtue of eliminating their work force?
I don't believe the rights of business exceeds individual human rights.



Slaves aren't employees, though. Ergo, the idea that "no employees = no production" is demonstrably false.

I was talking about regulation of employment there, not slavery.
 
Oh so what you're saying is that some people aren't really people?

I have no idea why you want to make this personal, because I did not say that some people are not really people.
We are not discussion my personal beliefs.

You proffered a question, to which the answer is yes, because it depends on how a person views other humanoids.
At the time in question many races were not considered of the same stature. So of course they could be a libertarian and own slaves because the others were just humanoids, definitely not of the same stature.

Now, if you want to change your op to make it dependent on the way we see things in today's day and age, that would be a different question.
But as it is, the answer to your question is... Yes.





I think resolving the question does come down to the matter of whether the libertarian sees another being as an equal. If the other being is not thought of as an equal, in fact not really human, then what is the difference between owning a dog or a cat and owning a being that looks like a human but really isn't? - in the libertarian's specific belief system.
I see another person gets it.
Yay!




You're forgetting one thing: The Libertarian doctrine of self-ownership.
And?
If the others are not considered human, self-ownership does not enter the picture.
 
Back
Top Bottom