• 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 am very familiar with the history. At no time did we intervene into the sovereign affair of foreign nations in regards to this issue.

Sailing into territorial waters and capturing a city in foreign territory in order to gain leverage to extract a trade treaty in our favor. I'd say that's violating another nation's territorial integrity and national sovereignty. I've already made my case. The Barbary Wars went beyond simple territorial self-defense for the reasons mentioned above and as a result, I don't believe they constitute a case of non-interventionism.

Your example of native tribes is a better example in that we could be considered the aggressor, but many will argue it was somewhat a policy of self preservation (albeit a weak one)

Guess we simply disagree on the definition of "non-intervention" then. Because since before we became a nation we were engaging in an activist foreign policy, including westward expansion. That's patently non-libertarian in my opinion.

Ron Paul is correct, and nobody of any significance really argues it. Nonintervention was absolutely the overriding philosophy in our early years, we simply didn’t view Indian tribes as states holding any form of sovereignty.

Well I guess you could make the case that the Founding Fathers were "non-interventionists" if you also take into account the possibility that they were hypocrites. Same way they believed that "all men were created equal," but some weren't equal enough to warrant being freed from slavery.
 
Last edited:
Sailing into territorial waters and capturing a city in foreign territory.

This happened after they became the aggressor

I'd say that's violating another nation's territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

I’d say you are wrong.

I've already made my case.

A weak one that historians largely agree was not an example of interventionism

Guess we simply disagree on the definition of "non-intervention" then. Because since before we became a nation we were engaging in an activist foreign policy, including westward expansion. That's patently non-libertarian in my opinion.

Most people quickly understand that our views on foreign policy were radically different pre WW1 then post WW2. That you can find examples involving Indian tribes or us meddling in disputes between Texas and Mexico does not make the overall policy of non-interventionism a pretend one.
 
"Non-intervention was American policy until the 20th C"

I do not think you have read your history.

Texas and New Mexico - the Mexican American War (1846-1848), California (1846), Hawaii (1893) Cuba (1898) - nope, no intervention there by Americans.
 
my car is rated ELEV...."extreme low-emissions vehicle"

So then we would have to look back and find out how many slaves each founding father owned , if it was under the national average, they could then be against slavery ???
 
No way lol... Jefferson owned slaves, he had libertarian philosophies but, you also have to look at the morality of the time. Even the beloved Abraham Lincoln said this:

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Did everyone like Lincoln's support of the exportation of slaves back to Africa?

Lysander Spooner is more of a libertarian than Jefferson. Ron Paul is more paleoconservative than libertarian in my eyes.

Edit:

I only read a little of the first page and had to post ;) I'll start reading the rest since its not to long of a thread.
 
Last edited:
if one can be a Libertarian AND a slave-owner, then Libertarians don't give a damn about human freedom or liberty...and only care about their own fortune.
 
if one can be a Libertarian AND a slave-owner, then Libertarians don't give a damn about human freedom or liberty...and only care about their own fortune.

Don't listen to this scarecrow, he hasn't seen the wizard yet.

Who is a slave owner and a libertarian anyway? I've yet to meet one.
 
Don't listen to this scarecrow, he hasn't seen the wizard yet.

Who is a slave owner and a libertarian anyway? I've yet to meet one.

Some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, and Ron Paul is dumb enough to try to peg the FF as "libertarians" so it raises the question.
 
No way lol... Jefferson owned slaves, he had libertarian philosophies but, you also have to look at the morality of the time. Even the beloved Abraham Lincoln said this:

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Did everyone like Lincoln's support of the exportation of slaves back to Africa?

Lysander Spooner is more of a libertarian than Jefferson. Ron Paul is more paleoconservative than libertarian in my eyes.

Edit:

I only read a little of the first page and had to post ;) I'll start reading the rest since its not to long of a thread.

Libertarianism is a recent invention. Up until the early 70's, "libertarianism" was classical liberalism.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
 
Last edited:
"Non-intervention was American policy until the 20th C"

I do not think you have read your history.

Texas and New Mexico - the Mexican American War (1846-1848), California (1846), Hawaii (1893) Cuba (1898) - nope, no intervention there by Americans.

War of 1812 as well, Somoa, attrocities against the indians, the start of US-Philippino war, and you could call the Civil War one as well.
 
Libertarianism is a recent invention. Up until the early 70's, "libertarianism" was classical liberalism.

Yep, never said otherwise ;). Just stating that Lysander Spooner is closer to a libertarian than Thomas Jefferson, as well as Frederic Bastiat and Albert Jay Nock.

Edit: I was reading Ralph Raico's book on classical liberal thought ;) got side tracked though

You can thank John Stuart Mill for the branch toward neo liberals, he was a Left Leaning Libertarian by todays standards
 
Last edited:
Can you be a slave owner and a libertarian at the same time?[/SIZE][/FONT]



Today? Of course not.

230 years ago? Well.... that's a little different. Actually it is a lot different. Judging historical figures by modern standards is a common fallacy.

The time they lived in was very different... so different it is hard for modern persons to really imagine what it was like, no matter how many times you've seen The Patriot or Last of the Mohicans. The very notion that a nation could be governed by its common citizenry was still very radical... even if citizen only meant free white males. The vast majority of people at that time did not believe that women or blacks were generally capable of managing their own affairs, let alone participating in running the State.

Yeah, they were wrong... but that was what almost everyone thought at the time. There were many people who barely considered black Africans to be human, let alone intelligent, let alone equal to the free white male. To the modern ear that sentence sound absolutely horrible, racism of the worst possible sort.... but to so many people in that era it was "the common wisdom", what "everyone knew".

There were some slave owners, IIRC Washington and Jefferson were among them, who publically deplored the institution but went on keeping slaves. Why? Well, that's probably complicated... one thing being economics, another being the reaction of their social peers if they'd up and freed their slaves... and another being whether those slaves could actually manage on their own after a lifetime of being told when to get up, when to sleep and eat, what to do and how to do it... they may well have felt dubious about whether the action would actually be benevolent or disasterous.

Do you, Gentle Reader, have any moral principles or values you hold about right and wrong? I imagine you do... but if I asked you "do you ALWAYS do EXACTLY as your principles dictate in every situation, every time?" I'm pretty sure any honest person would answer "Well... no, not ALL the time." Hm. Does that make you a hypocrite? Or does it just make you human that you are not perfect in all ways? I'd say the latter.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm against slavery and consider it a great evil, and I'm glad it was done away with and wish we had NEVER allowed it in the USA at ALL. All I'm saying is we need to understand the times to understand the man, and ought to be cautious about judging figures from 230+ years ago by modern standards. It was a very different world.
 
Today? Of course not.

230 years ago? Well.... that's a little different. Actually it is a lot different. Judging historical figures by modern standards is a common fallacy.

The time they lived in was very different... so different it is hard for modern persons to really imagine what it was like, no matter how many times you've seen The Patriot or Last of the Mohicans. The very notion that a nation could be governed by its common citizenry was still very radical... even if citizen only meant free white males. The vast majority of people at that time did not believe that women or blacks were generally capable of managing their own affairs, let alone participating in running the State.

Yeah, they were wrong... but that was what almost everyone thought at the time. There were many people who barely considered black Africans to be human, let alone intelligent, let alone equal to the free white male. To the modern ear that sentence sound absolutely horrible, racism of the worst possible sort.... but to so many people in that era it was "the common wisdom", what "everyone knew".

There were some slave owners, IIRC Washington and Jefferson were among them, who publically deplored the institution but went on keeping slaves. Why? Well, that's probably complicated... one thing being economics, another being the reaction of their social peers if they'd up and freed their slaves... and another being whether those slaves could actually manage on their own after a lifetime of being told when to get up, when to sleep and eat, what to do and how to do it... they may well have felt dubious about whether the action would actually be benevolent or disasterous.

Do you, Gentle Reader, have any moral principles or values you hold about right and wrong? I imagine you do... but if I asked you "do you ALWAYS do EXACTLY as your principles dictate in every situation, every time?" I'm pretty sure any honest person would answer "Well... no, not ALL the time." Hm. Does that make you a hypocrite? Or does it just make you human that you are not perfect in all ways? I'd say the latter.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm against slavery and consider it a great evil, and I'm glad it was done away with and wish we had NEVER allowed it in the USA at ALL. All I'm saying is we need to understand the times to understand the man, and ought to be cautious about judging figures from 230+ years ago by modern standards. It was a very different world.

Bravo Bravo, a voice of reason! People still have a misconception of Jefferson being libertarian, probably because of radical Paul supporters.

Edit: People back then believed that blacks were inferior and couldnt take care of themselves.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.".

Abraham Lincoln

Even this guy here didn't think to highly of them ;)
 
Last edited:
Bravo Bravo, a voice of reason! People still have a misconception of Jefferson being libertarian, probably because of radical Paul supporters.

Agreed. The Founders were a varied lot actually, but for the most part they were what we refer to as "classical liberals." Classical liberal, in that day and age, typically referred to someone well-educated in "the classics" (something almost extinct in the modern era... meaning they were well-read and well-versed in things like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, as well as more contemporary thinkers like Locke) who tended to embrace free-market economics (rather than the "manor system" or mercantilism or guild-dominated economy /etc) and political freedom over monarchy and aristocracy.

Classical Liberal was somewhat like modern Right-Libertarianism, and somewhat like modern Conservativism, but somewhat different from either. It is a field of study unto itself.
 
Agreed. The Founders were a varied lot actually, but for the most part they were what we refer to as "classical liberals." Classical liberal, in that day and age, typically referred to someone well-educated in "the classics" (something almost extinct in the modern era... meaning they were well-read and well-versed in things like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, as well as more contemporary thinkers like Locke) who tended to embrace free-market economics (rather than the "manor system" or mercantilism or guild-dominated economy /etc) and political freedom over monarchy and aristocracy.

Classical Liberal was somewhat like modern Right-Libertarianism, and somewhat like modern Conservativism, but somewhat different from either. It is a field of study unto itself.

I completely agree but, I'll add John Stuart Mill definitely leaned left.
 
Agreed. The Founders were a varied lot actually, but for the most part they were what we refer to as "classical liberals." Classical liberal, in that day and age, typically referred to someone well-educated in "the classics" (something almost extinct in the modern era... meaning they were well-read and well-versed in things like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, as well as more contemporary thinkers like Locke) who tended to embrace free-market economics (rather than the "manor system" or mercantilism or guild-dominated economy /etc) and political freedom over monarchy and aristocracy.

Classical Liberal was somewhat like modern Right-Libertarianism, and somewhat like modern Conservativism, but somewhat different from either. It is a field of study unto itself.

What's that word to describe a false past tense word?
 
Bravo Bravo, a voice of reason! People still have a misconception of Jefferson being libertarian, probably because of radical Paul supporters.

Edit: People back then believed that blacks were inferior and couldnt take care of themselves.

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.".

Abraham Lincoln

Even this guy here didn't think to highly of them ;)

And then the globalist dixiecrats (Libertarians) try to maneuver the South into being black baby huggers who just had employment opportunities for blacks.
 
Libertarianism is a recent invention. Up until the early 70's, "libertarianism" was classical liberalism.

Libertarianism is a 1970's invention and it has nothing to do with old liberalism.

Apparently the word "Classic" gives a false impression of 19th century liberalism, so use the word "old" instead.
 
And then the globalist dixiecrats (Libertarians) try to maneuver the South into being black baby huggers who just had employment opportunities for blacks.

Lmao... Lysander Spooner was a northern abolitionist... And Frederic Bastiat was french.... You should educate yourself before you try to educate others lol...
 
Libertarianism is a 1970's invention and it has nothing to do with old liberalism.

Apparently the word "Classic" gives a false impression of 19th century liberalism, so use the word "old" instead.

Look up classical liberalism and get back to us.
 
Look up classical liberalism and get back to us.


I wouldn't waste time worrying about it. Mr Foley prefers to use his own definitions and dictionary and tends to remain largely unmoved by little things like.... oh.... facts and such.
 
I wouldn't waste time worrying about it. Mr Foley prefers to use his own definitions and dictionary and tends to remain largely unmoved by little things like.... oh.... facts and such.

Ah i see, I was wondering what he thinks of classical music. Does he prefer to change the name of this genre of music to old music? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom