• 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
Thunder said:
sure they were. They were people owned by someone else, but they were still people.

However, black Africans were considered inferior people, hence they were the only slaves in the USA post-Revolution.
Click to expand...

What you have just said is nonsense.

A person has a right to liberty recognized and protected by a government. A slave has no liberty and is simply someone else's property, like a dog or a cow.
 
JayDubya said:
What you have just said is nonsense.

A person has a right to liberty recognized and protected by a government. A slave has no liberty and is simply someone else's property, like a dog or a cow.
Click to expand...

slaves are persons, which is why slavery & Libertarianism are mutually-exclusive.
 
Thunder said:
slaves are persons, which is why slavery & Libertarianism are mutually-exclusive.
Click to expand...

Slaves had as much personhood as a horse. Or a chair.
 
I just read the OP again and realized this. Dr. Paul says the founders had a "Non-interventionist foreign policy"?

Either he hasn't hit the history books or he's being incredibly disingenuous. Except for a period of isolationism during the inter-war period, we've had an activist foreign policy since before we even gained our independence. I mean I guess all that "non-interventionist foreign policy" was why we didn't intervene in those pesky Barbary Wars and the creation of the US Navy...oh wait...
 
StillBallin75 said:
I mean I guess all that "non-interventionist foreign policy" was why we didn't intervene in those pesky Barbary Wars and the creation of the US Navy...oh wait...
Click to expand...

actually the problem is you are ignorant of non-interventionism. any claims that we violated a non-interventionist foreign policy is patently false right out of the gate. The Barbary wars was in response to acts of aggression against us.
 
I'm sure this has been said... I haven't read through all the posts.

Slaves were not legally or socially considered to be people. They were considered property. This is one of the many things that has evolved over time. Practically no on in current society would see things that way. People are individual. Individuals have rights, such as property ownership.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Dude...I HATE agreeing with ARC but he just gave you the ****ing JSTOR link. Read it.
Click to expand...

what a hackish thing to say.

I mean, it is obvious based simply on the way you carry yourself on this forum, but to come right out in the open and admit you are this type of person is rather sad.
 
kamikaze483 said:
I'm sure this has been said... I haven't read through all the posts.

Slaves were not legally or socially considered to be people. They were considered property. This is one of the many things that has evolved over time. Practically no on in current society would see things that way. People are individual. Individuals have rights, such as property ownership.
Click to expand...

this is simply an apologist stance. modern day racists still will argue certain people are sub-human, so they also are not racist. it's just property dude.
 
ARealConservative said:
actually the problem is you are ignorant of non-interventionism. any claims that we violated a non-interventionist foreign policy is patently false right out of the gate. The Barbary wars was in response to acts of aggression against us.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the response went beyond simply protecting American shipping interests and mere self-defense.
 
ARealConservative said:
what a hackish thing to say.

I mean, it is obvious based simply on the way you carry yourself on this forum, but to come right out in the open and admit you are this type of person is rather sad.
Click to expand...

"A hackish thing to say?" "Admit I am this type of person?" You sayin in order for someone to not be a hack they have to agree with you all the time or some ****?

I just ****ing agreed with you. Take it for what it's worth dude.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Yes, but the response went beyond simply protecting American shipping interests and mere self-defense.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. We never came close to intervening in the affairs of sovereign nations on this issue. so what you wrote was patently ignorant. We were attacked, and they declared war on us. That you use this as an example of non-intervention is comical, and that is even ignoring the part about how Ron Paul needs to read more history books.

You need to read a hell of a lot more of just about everything if you want to debate someone on this subject.
 
StillBallin75 said:
"A hackish thing to say?" "Admit I am this type of person?"

I just ****ing agreed with you. Take it for what it's worth dude.
Click to expand...

you just expressed great pain that you had to agree with me. It shows that you keep a close eye on the people, and not the views, when you are actively debating. I find this sad. You clearly disagree.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Dude...I HATE agreeing with ARC but he just gave you the ****ing JSTOR link. Read it.
Click to expand...

simply posting a link as evidence for a claim, isn't sufficient.

he should at least have the courtesy to summarize or quote the relevent section from the link that supports his claim.
 
ARealConservative said:
you just expressed great pain that you had to agree with me. It shows that you keep a close eye on the people, and not the views, when you are actively debating. I find this sad. You clearly disagree.
Click to expand...

You seem to think the individual and his views are separate. This isn't the case. There are people I constantly disagree with on this forum because their views are usually bull****.
 
StillBallin75 said:
You seem to think the individual and his views are separate. This isn't the case. There are people I constantly disagree with on this forum because their views are usually bull****.
Click to expand...

A non hack would simply disagree and explain why

But hey, thanks for the pathetic way you went about agreeing with me. It was really swell of you and all.
 
Thunder said:
"From the halls of Montezuma...to the shores of Tripoli.."

non-interventionalist...my butt.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the founders who started that crap, as the founders were typically classical liberals, and classical liberalism advocates non-interventionism. It happened when real liberalism fell out of favor in the early 1900's.
 
I say it's completely possible. If most Libertarians I've spoken to or read on this board are any indication...all it takes to be a libertarian is to talk about freedom and liberty in some abstract way while knowingly supporting contrary policies.
 
lizzie said:
It wasn't the founders who started that crap, as the founders were typically classical liberals, and classical liberalism advocates non-interventionism. It happened when real liberalism fell out of favor in the early 1900's.
Click to expand...

we invaded Tripoli in the 18th century.
 
ARealConservative said:
Irrelevant. We never came close to intervening in the affairs of sovereign nations on this issue. so what you wrote was patently ignorant. We were attacked, and they declared war on us. That you use this as an example of non-intervention is comical, and that is even ignoring the part about how Ron Paul needs to read more history books.

You need to read a hell of a lot more of just about everything if you want to debate someone on this subject.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Read into the actual history of at least the first Barbary War.

First of all, at the time the war began, and Jefferson initiated the naval blockade of Tripoli, there weren't any acts of aggression against American shipping. It's true that we had signed a treaty at the time that pretty much forced us to pay extortionary amounts of tribute in order to ensure safe passage of American merchant shipping because we didn't have a strong enough Navy at the time, but there weren't any actual acts of aggression being committed against us, or our shipping. At the time, American merchant shipping had been enjoying safe passage through the Mediterranean for about 15 years because we were paying about $1 million in tribute to the Barbary states per year.

Moreover, "never came close to intervening in the affairs of sovereign nations?" Seriously? We CAPTURED the Tripolitan city of Derna with 8 US Marines and a few hundred Arab and Greek mercenaries, an act which purely went beyond direct self-defense. "Never came close to intervening" my ass.

From wikipedia:

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.
Click to expand...

That's clearly not what happened here. While the Barbary states were pissing us off, the First Barbary war was an act of aggression and was instigated on OUR part, in that we made the first move. If you disagree with my account of the war then by all means point out where I'm wrong. Even if I were to grant you that the Barbary wars were in RESPONSE to an act of aggression, I'd still maintain that marching on, and capturing a city in enemy territory goes far beyond simple "direct self-defense." It would be as if Iran detained, tortured, and killed an American citizen in their custody, and our response would be to invade Iran capture and occupy the city of Tehran. That sure as hell isn't self-defense.

And even if you dismissed the Barbary Wars as an instance of interventionism and I were to agree with you, I could point to other examples. There sure as hell isn't anything "non-interventionist" about westward expansion and conflicts with native tribes, all policies promoted by our "non-interventionist" founding Fathers.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
I was referring to the non-interventionism. Protecting US merchant ships is a different matter altogether.
Click to expand...

protecting them....from what?

StillBallin75 said:
...First of all, at the time the war began, and Jefferson initiated the naval blockade of Tripoli, there weren't any acts of aggression against American shipping...
Click to expand...
 
StillBallin75 said:
Bull****. Read into the actual history of at least the first Barbary War.
Click to expand...

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.

And even if you dismissed the Barbary Wars as an instance of interventionism and I were to agree with you, I could point to other examples. There sure as hell isn't anything "non-interventionist" about westward expansion and conflicts with native tribes, all policies promoted by our "non-interventionist" founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

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)

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.
 
ARealConservative said:
...Nonintervention was absolutely the overriding philosophy in our early years, we simply didn’t view Indian tribes as states holding any form of sovereignty.
Click to expand...

did we not sign territorial treaties with the Native Americans, and violate such treaties time and time again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom