• 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
Considering that one of the more popular libertarian buzzwords is "slavery" (regarding taxation), then of course the answer is 'no'.

Then again, keep in mind that many of our founding fathers, whom many would hold up as libertarian-esque, also used the phrase "...all men are created equal..." in the Declaration of Independence, yet obviously didn't live the concept.
 
radcen said:
Considering that one of the more popular libertarian buzzwords is "slavery" (regarding taxation), then of course the answer is 'no'.

Then again, keep in mind that many of our founding fathers, whom many would hold up as libertarian-esque, also used the phrase "...all men are created equal..." in the Declaration of Independence, yet obviously didn't live the concept.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that those who signed the DofI did believe "...all men are created equal..." it's just that they didn't think women were equal nor were those of non-European ancestry which included not only African slaves but also the Native Americans, to be considered "men"

It was a very different world the Founding Fathers lived in and much of the conflict about meaning to be found in the words of the Founding Fathers is simply because most Americans really don't understand those differences.
 
megaprogman said:
Yes, a racist libertarian would not see a conflict ...
Click to expand...
lol

Not believing they were not human, does not a racist make.

But, for the sake of the argument I am sure there were some who saw them as human and inferior. But that does not imply that they believed their own race was superior to all others. Just that the other was inferior.
But I am also sure there were some of those types also.


So what do we call the African's that enslaved their own and sold them into slavery? Were they racists also, because there was differences between Tribes, or just Tribalists (lol), perhaps believing that other Tribes were inferior, or that their Tribe was superior top all others?
And what do we call the free blacks in the US that owned slaves as well? Just a slaver?



The point of all this being is, there is no conflict with being a libertarian at the time, and owning slaves.
 
In that era, blacks were considered to be animals, not humans and having a slave was like owning a dog today. That sure doesn't make it right but that's how it was.

Look at some of our behavior in these "enlightened" times. We kill wantonly from thousands of miles away. We own weapons that could shatter the Earth.

In 200 years, when the computer is implanted in your brain, you'll be discussing the wrongness of drones and atomics in the 21st Century.
 
Excon said:
lol

Not believing they were not human, does not a racist make.
Click to expand...

epic-fail-2.jpg


Excon said:
But, for the sake of the argument I am sure there were some who saw them as human and inferior. But that does not imply that they believed their own race was superior to all others. Just that the other was inferior.
But I am also sure there were some of those types also.

So what do we call the African's that enslaved their own and sold them into slavery? Were they racists also, because there was differences between Tribes, or just Tribalists (lol), perhaps believing that other Tribes were inferior, or that their Tribe was superior top all others?
And what do we call the free blacks in the US that owned slaves as well? Just a slaver?

The point of all this being is, there is no conflict with being a libertarian at the time, and owning slaves.
Click to expand...

Yes, a racist libertarian would not see a conflict ...
 
Seeing as most modern day libertarians base their philosophy off of the principle of non-agression, keeping a human being as a slave against their will would be a giant, inexcusable contradiction.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Wrong!

implied1.jpg



Because you missed the iterated point of what I said.
Click to expand...

Yes because pretending minorities are not human is sooooooooooo different from the type of racism you bring up :roll:
 
megaprogman said:
Yes because pretending minorities are not human is sooooooooooo different from the type of racism you bring up :roll:
Click to expand...
Apparently you lack an understanding of what racist really means.
 
Excon said:
Apparently you lack an understanding of what racist really means.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I am not the one trying to defend your racism in some bad attempt at a technicality. You are amusing though.
 
megaprogman said:
:shrug: I am not the one trying to defend your racism in some bad attempt at a technicality. You are amusing though.
Click to expand...
Now you are just trying to make this personal. That is a a showing of desperation.

Show the founders, who we are discussing, believed that their race was superior to any other race.
Good luck with that.
 
Excon said:
Now you are just trying to make this personal. That is a a showing of desperation.
Click to expand...

I made it personal in the first post I made in this thread, in response to your view, since it was your comment that showed racist ideology.

Excon said:
Show the founders, who we are discussing, believed that their race was superior to any other race.
Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me who wrote this?

"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."
Click to expand...

Either way, the founding fathers are dead, I am more concerned about your racist comment as shown in the post I quoted.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
It could be argued that those who signed the DofI did believe "...all men are created equal..." it's just that they didn't think women were equal nor were those of non-European ancestry which included not only African slaves but also the Native Americans, to be considered "men"

It was a very different world the Founding Fathers lived in and much of the conflict about meaning to be found in the words of the Founding Fathers is simply because most Americans really don't understand those differences.
Click to expand...
It was a different era and time, and with that differing perceptions than how we would think, but at the same time I think you're going to the other extreme and letting them off too easy.
 
megaprogman said:
in response to your view, since it was your comment that showed racist ideology.
Click to expand...
That is all in your mind.


megaprogman said:
Can you tell me who wrote this?
Click to expand...
Even though I know, it doesn't matter to this discussion.
His spoken suspicion taken out of context does not matter to what we are discussing.


megaprogman said:
Either way, the founding fathers are dead,
Click to expand...
Dude!
That is who we are talking about.
If you want to discuss something else, take it elsewhere.


megaprogman said:
I am more concerned about your racist comment as shown in the post I quoted.
Click to expand...
And again, that is in your mind, or if you will, your suspicions. lol.
 
Excon said:
That is all in your mind.
Click to expand...

To the extent that any idea is all in the mind sure. However calling people nonhuman on the basis of race or ethnicity is racism.

Excon said:
Even though I know, it doesn't matter to this discussion.
His spoken suspicion taken out of context does not matter to what we are discussing.

Dude!
That is who we are talking about.
If you want to discuss something else, take it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That is what you are talking about here, my subject matter is your comment.

Excon said:
And again, that is in your mind, or if you will, your suspicions. lol.
Click to expand...

So this is your defense now that your logical failure didn't fly?
 
megaprogman said:
So this is your defense now that your logical failure didn't fly?
Click to expand...
Your lack of understanding is what doesn't fly here.


megaprogman said:
That is what you are talking about here, my subject matter is your comment.
Click to expand...
Start a thread then. Because as it stands your comment has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

I would suggest you go back and reread what has been said again, because you are off base.



megaprogman said:
To the extent that any idea is all in the mind sure. However calling people nonhuman on the basis of race or ethnicity is racism.
Click to expand...
Race applies to humans.
If they are considered non-human. Race doesn't apply.
 
Excon said:
Civil Rights?
Click to expand...
Did I stutter?

We are speaking during the time of the founders and how they viewed things.
Click to expand...
The person I responded to wasn't.

There are no Civil Rights to be applied if one is considered to be not human, not fully human, just humanoid, etc...
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant due to the egalitarian nature of rights laws today. Next time read what I'm responding to.
 
by modern definitions, anyone who owned slaves during the 18th century, was clearly NOT a Libertarian.
 
Lokiate said:
The person I responded to wasn't.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
You responded to me. It was what I was addressing.
You fail to realize that.


Lokiate said:
Which is irrelevant due to the egalitarian nature of rights laws today. Next time read what I'm responding to.
Click to expand...
There you go, talking about today again.
IOt has no bearing on what I said. And you were responding to me.
So maybe you should read and comprehend that to which you are responding.
 
Thunder said:
by modern definitions, anyone who owned slaves during the 18th century, was clearly NOT a Libertarian.
Click to expand...
That clearly depends.
 
Lokiate said:
You're forgetting one thing: The Libertarian doctrine of self-ownership.
Click to expand...
If you own yourself you can offer yourself as a slave for collateral on a loan. Right. Keep the government out of it.
 
Excon said:
Race applies to humans.
If they are considered non-human. Race doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Here is that racism again.

To be clear, denying that black, asian, indian, or whatever people are not human is a racist attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom