Virginia apologizes for slavery... why?

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I see now. My post was inacurate. I know there was not overwhelming support saying slavery was morally wrong, but the fact is it got abolished. That was my point. They got it done. The fact that it happened before there was overwhelming popular support for it is something that should be looked favorably upon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you also look favorably upon the 700,000 who were killed in the process?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you see it as a bad thing because people had to die for it to be accomplished? Or maybe not a bad thing, just if you had the choise between slavery still being legal in this country and 700,000 people back alive, you would choose slavery?

[/ QUOTE ]

The logical fallacy of today is : false dichotomy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah because there were TONS of other options back then that did not involve war. Perhaps, the slave owners could have all sat down with Lincoln and the abolitionists smoked a peace pipe and come to a solution that made everyone happy.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah because there were TONS of other options back then that did not involve war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery ended everywhere else in the world without the need to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.



[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, the slave owners could have all sat down with Lincoln and the abolitionists smoked a peace pipe and come to a solution that made everyone happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think Lincoln was some sort of anti-slavery crusader?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Corporations are ... legal constructs that illegitimately shield individuals from liability. They are not free-market entities.


[/ QUOTE ] Unless I missed something, weren't you exculpating monopolistic corporations in another thread ? Now you are saying they are not even entities of the free market? Are you having us on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite plz.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"xyz corp" is a legal entity created by the state.

[/ QUOTE ]The corporation "xyz" is not created by the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is true and false at the same time. Without the framework of the state, the corporation cannot exist as we know it.

[ QUOTE ]
The state merely provides the legal framework for the creation of corporations. And individual citizens create corporations by applying the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Individuals are the actors.

[ QUOTE ]
Note that there has been no citizen call for the abolition of the relevant laws.

[/ QUOTE ]



You're kidding, right? You've never seen anyone rage against corporations?











You don't think these people are really upset about coffee, do you??

[ QUOTE ]
So, the state mechanism is not to blame here for the actions of individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean the mechanism is a good idea. You might know a guy that is a habitual wife beater. Do you think it's a good idea to give him booze and a baseball bat right before he goes home? It's not "your fault" that he beats his wife, of course.

[ QUOTE ]
The citizens themselves elect to have a law that allows for the creation of corporations and they also elect to have a mechanism (law courts, etc) that enforces those laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ever "elect" such a thing? Can you show me the ballot provision?

I certainly didn't vote for such a thing. So if *you* want such a thing, I think it's fine for you to have that. But, like all such matters, you make the leap from it being acceptable to some portion of the population to assuming it is therefore OK to impose it upon everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, please note that the fiercely independent and individualistic ACer can always choose NOT to deal with corporations. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Like I can choose to not deal with bank robbers. Are you in favor of encouraging those too, since I can just avoid them if I don't like it?

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think Lincoln was some sort of anti-slavery crusader?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not, that's why I listed him seperate from the abolitionists and the slave owners.

[ QUOTE ]
Slavery ended everywhere else in the world without the need to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure slaves in Haiti had to fight for their freedom. Also, every other place in the world where slavery existed had it's own unique set of circumstances so to say that the same could happen here isn't accurate. I think a similar analogy would be to say that since a relatively successful democratic republic was formed here, then a country in the middle east would be just as sucessful if one was instilled over there.


EDIT - I'm wrong about Haiti, the conflict came after France abolished slavery and then Napoleon came back to re-establish control over that area. He was fought off by the exslaves and they formed Haiti as a rusult. Close, but no cigar I guess. Other than that I'm not finding too much info surrounding the abolition of slavery in other places other than the dates on my initial search. I'm studying for a finance test right now so I can't get too into it unfortunately.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brain,

Tounge in cheek aside, yeah basically. I'm not saying that "life should be (more) fair" is some sort of statement that I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Such things do not exist. But I believe it to be true, and I will use whatever limited power I have to work towards it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you feel about inequalities in athleticism, looks, or mental capacity?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are what they are. People should be given the opportunity to pursue their own talents and interests to some capacity. You can try to convince me that one way of doing this is better than another (socialist state, ac, minimalist state, whatever), but that's my goal and I'm sticking to it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think Lincoln was some sort of anti-slavery crusader?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not, that's why I listed him seperate from the abolitionists and the slave owners.

[ QUOTE ]
Slavery ended everywhere else in the world without the need to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure slaves in Hati had to fight for their freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many people were killed? Did another nation invade? Did the invading nation have legalized slavery itself?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, every other place in the world where slavery existed had it's own unique set of circumstances so to say that the same could happen here isn't accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

To say it couldn't isn't accurate, either. Give peace a chance?

[Money2Burn]

Ahhh, you got your reply up before I could finish my edit.
Check that for info. on the Haiti conflict.

You make a good point about the peace issue and I agree that it would have been infinately better if some peacefull means could have been used, I'm just skeptical that it could have been accomplished in the U.S. at that time.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You make a good point about the peace issue and I agree that it would have been infinately better if some peacefull means could have been used, I'm just skeptical that it could have been accomplished in the U.S. at that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Do you think that ending slavery was the purpose of the war?

1a) If so, why was slavery not outlawed in the north until much later? Why did the Emancipation Proclaimation only apply to the south, and even then, only to areas still in open rebellion?

2) What was so important about ending slavery "at that time" that made it worth 700,000 lives? Do you think slavery would still exist today in the US (or CS) if not for the war?

2b) How long is "too long" to wait, in order for you to prefer 700,000 dead over waiting?

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
They are what they are. People should be given the opportunity to pursue their own talents and interests to some capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on this, but I don't have a problem with the fact that some people are going to be born into more advantagous circumstances (i.e. wealth) and some people are going ot be born into very disadvantagous circumstances and it seems you do.

[Money2Burn]

1) No, not the purpose, but it was the primary factor that led to secession and consequently the war.

1a) Not sure where you are getting that slavery wasn't outlawed in the north, but I believe many northern states had abolished slavery prior to the war.

2) Nothing was so special about that specific time, but that was when it happened so I was considering the possibliity that slavery could have been abolished then without armed conflict. I guess if Lincoln would have been ok with those original states leaving then technically abolition would have been accompished peacefully in the US. As far as would it still have existed today in either the US or CS, I really have no clue. You probably want me to say that it wouldn't, and I think you would be right. The chances of it still existing today are slim. Then I would guess that would lead to a cost/ benefit analysis of some sort between lives lost in the civil war to lives lost had slavery been abolished at some later date. It would probably be much better from a pure numbers standpoint had the war not occured, but I don't know how many african americans would agree that they would be better off today.

2b) That goes back to that whole cost/benefit analysis. I'm not sure, and I'm tired from studying right now so I can't come up with a decent answer.