That was the custom of the day. Again, the founders were not perfect in the least. But compared to their contemporaries, they were far superior. As you may know, the founders were quite conflicted over this issue, and T.J. himself wrote the abolishment of slavery in the first draft (he was also instrumental in banning the importation of slaves, first as a Virginia legislator and later as president). Also, Frederick Douglass advocated the ratification of the constitution with the compromise of keeping slavery intact in the South, for the alternative would be two different competing nations (and Douglass also feared that the Confederate South would expand their slavery empire to the far southern tip of South America).I do not see how people who prize liberty and freedom can participate in the ownership of slaves.
Are you KIDDING?! The way to oppose slavery is to oppose the idea of liberty? Is that what you’re saying?It is such a contradiction that - in my opinion - it completely invalidates and negates any claim a person can make to being a lover of liberty or freedom.
Are you talking to me or about the founders? Again, you don’t have to hate the founders and everything they stood for because they made some very bad decisions regarding slavery. Do you hate FDR completely because of his Executive Order 9066? Do you hate Gandhi for beating his wife or Barack Obama for allowing the outsourcing of torture? We can’t make excuses for the founders, but we also can’t totally condemn them for they did lay the groundwork for this free nation.It goes beyond common political hypocrisy. And then to take the issue beyond mere ownership of another person and institutionalize it in the new constitution you are writing is a bridge too far.
In 1776, not many governments were willing to let you practice your own religion, or to speak freely or to assemble peaceably to make your grievances known without decapitation, or many other liberties you seem to take for granted.The very idea that someone can claim to cherish liberty and freedom while owning another human being is simply all the evidence needed to deny anyone the mantle of a freedom lover.
Bull****! That is a lie. If you’re talking about Rand Paul’s not-so-distant controversy regarding his civil rights law comment, it was specifically in regards to private business. Paul stated he would personally boycott any and all private businesses that refused service based on color, but that the federal government had no authority to tell individual businessmen who they could and could not conduct business with. Do you ever walk into a restaurant or store and see a sign that says: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? Do you believe such a right shouldn’t exist? The idea of free trade is that you are free to trade with whomever you wish to trade with. It is not the role of government to force businesses to service everyone, regardless of circumstances. And this dealt strictly with certain parts of a single title within the historic legislation. ALL other titles of the act, Paul supported.Perhaps you can offer your views on a related subject to your claim about libertarians today. It is no secret that modern libertarians in the USA find themselves on the opposite side of almost every issue that the Civil Rights community favors and advocates for.
Bringing up affirmative action into the debate is really hurting your argument. Affirmative Action is opposed by lots of people, not just libertarians. Many liberals, blacks, and other Americans oppose Affirmative Action for its unconstitutionality and political privileging. However, let’s go back to civil rights and race relations.This includes the various Civil Rights laws of the Sixties, affirmative action and lots of other laws and programs that African Americans have supported and labored for as a group for all of my lifetime. But almost as a universal bloc, modern libertarians find reasons to oppose these.
Would you care to look back before the civil rights law passed, and examine the harsh reality of prejudism and KKK activism that plagued society in the early 20th century? Who was the progressive, liberal president that praised A Birth of a Nation and said it was like writing history with lightning? Woodrow Wilson. On the other hand, which U.S. president from the 20th century could be most closely identified with free-market libertarians? Obviously, it was Calvin Coolidge. Please read this little snippet from Wikipedia about his civil rights record: Calvin Coolidge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
REMEMBER the time period. Coolidge openly supported civil rights for African-Americans and Catholics in the 1920s! Politicians wouldn’t have the guts to do that until way later, arguably the mid 1950s. He also granted full citizenship to Native Americans while permitting them to retain tribal land and cultural rights. He also championed for anti-lynching legislation, which was ultimately shut down by congress. Say what you want about his economic policy, Coolidge (one of a libertarian’s favorite U.S. presidents, alongside Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, and Cleveland) was a fighter for civil rights.
Was it just because I called the founders libertarians? Otherwise, I don’t understand how one might see a libertarian love of freedom for all people as hollow. Libertarians are the only ones who actually follow through with their principles. Libertarians do not compromise on the issue of liberty, for it is the basis of the entire movement. There are no exemptions to liberty.Do you understand why many people who have no axe to grind against libertarianism see your comments as hollow regarding the libertarian love of freedom for all people?
Here are some more points in my favor:
I’ve already mentioned that FDR was bigot who imprisoned innocent civilians without just cause.
Jim Crow laws, black codes, and other legislation that violated people’s civil rights were handed down by government officials, NOT by individual businessmen. Businesses were at the forefront of change. Who was it that was offering blacks first-class seats on trains, because the company knew there was profit to be made? The first integrated schools were privately-run!
It’s gone both ways. Precedence doesn’t sway me either way. The precedence is only as stable as the logic used to interpret the law. If precedence were so important, we’d still be stuck with segregation.As for the elastic clause - it is relevant. There is no shortage of libertarian opinion about it painting it to be the cause of many of the ills of 20th century government. The Supreme Court has issued many rulings using it as authority for Congress to pass many laws and create many programs that libertarians object to.
No, but the elastic clause DOES have to do with something regarding the specific governmental powers drawn out in the constitution. If politicians decide to give the government powers it is deemed not to have by the constitution, then no amount of interpreting the elasticity clause will justify the new expansion in power. How does the elasticity clause justify drug prohibition or prohibition against prostitution? How does it justify a national healthcare system?This clause was not a 20th century amendment but part of the document as written in 1787. I am sure you are going to tell me that the men in 1787 would not interpret it in the way that we have done for the last century and thus they would not have objected to it. You are entitled to that defense. Truthfully, it simply does not pass the smell test.
I have as well. Thank you.I enjoy discussing this with you. thank you.