- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
from El Galt on slavery at the time of the writing of the US Constitution
Many nations had already abolished slavery or the slave trade. That list included
Sweeden, Japan, Poland, Lithuania, Chile, Japan, Russia, Portugal and Scotland among others. I would hardly call that the custom of the day.
I offered this on the idea of lovers of liberty allowing slavery to be placed in the new Constitution
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.
the response for Galt
No. I am not kidding. The want to advance liberty is not on the backs of a race of people being held in a condition of slavery. To write lofty statements about the equality of man and the equality of all mankind while personally owning slaves and enshrining a system of slavery into the national Constitution is a serious contradiction that goes far beyond mere political hypocrisy. It seriously calls into question the merit of such a label as 'lover of freedom' or 'lover of liberty' and demonstrates why it is hollow at best.
It is not BS that most modern libertarians have found themselves on the opposite side of a long list of issues advocated by African Americans and the American civil rights community. And I refer to much much more than a single law about a business practice. If you take almost every issue regarding African Americans and the effort to attain full equality, libertarians have been in lockstock with the most right wing of conservatives on them. They certainly come up with loftier reasons then the Bull Conners and George Wallaces of the world - but in the end they come down on the same side as that crowd.
Affirmative action is but a single item on a much larger list which would include almost every Civil Rights Law from the Sixties through today, laws passed to aid African Americans, and programs aimed at helping them. You mention Ron Paul and I cannot help but think of this hypocrisy in refusing to allocate any monies for medals for Rosa Parks and others claiming there is not any Constitutional language for that expenditure while co-sponsoring and voting for striking of coins to raise money for a private organization - the Boy Scouts at the same time. And there is not language in the US Constitution to allow the printing of coins to raise extra money for a private organization. But he found a way to do it.
I will grant you the point that one can oppose some affirmative actions programs without being a racist or even a conservative on civil rights. Yes, that is true and liberals also find reasons to oppose it. However, there is a very extensive list of civil rights laws and programs that are opposed by libertarians that go far beyond affirmative action and I believe we both know that.
The US Supreme Court has heard those arguments and has held that the use of Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18 does indeed come into play and permit these things. Rather than me simply parrot the Court - and do a far less extensive and thorough job in the task - I would recommend that if you want to know those answers you refer to the specific controversy and the SC ruling that approved the programs that you are opposed to. Your objections have been dealt with in the Court for a long time now.
But we are going astray from the main point here.
The people who wrote the US Constitution were complex men who harbored a variety of ideologies and opinions about government and other issues. I have no doubt that some of them did harbor ideas that would be in sync with some ideas of some modern libertarians. They also possessed ideas which greatly put them out of sync with the beliefs of modern libertarians - if we take those beliefs at face value. Even so, that does not make them libertarians. That does not make the Constitution a libertarian document. And it certainly does not give license to modern libertarians to claim it as a libertarian work product or any sort of a validation of their current belief system.
I've already responded to everything you've just said. Why should I waste my time giving you a lengthy response when you only reply to a couple of sentences (and you merely repeat everything you've already said)? Plus, you're notorious for being vague about what civil liberties libertarians oppose. Affirmative Action is not a civil liberty!
If you're going to respond to this post, please respond to the other points I've made. Especially in regards to FDR, Coolidge, Wilson, and Douglass.
Also, Sweden didn't fully outlaw slavery until the mid 1800s (be careful where you get your evidence). Japan enslaved millions of people during WW2. Denmark and Norway still had slavery until the 1800s. Portugal still maintained slavery in Africa. Many of the glorious freedom nations you have just mentioned actually continued slavery in their colonies.
Last edited: