Virginia apologizes for slavery... why?

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not like we invented slavery. Slavery existed for thousands of years before our country was founded. Once we decided that it was wrong it was abolished. Sure the South fought hard to keep it, but that was becuase their entire economy was built on it. In my opinion the more deplorable part of our history was the period of segregation trumped only by our treatment of native americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think many people agree with your analysis of our history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery still exists in this country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you are an employee of WAL-MART

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not like we invented slavery. Slavery existed for thousands of years before our country was founded. Once we decided that it was wrong it was abolished. Sure the South fought hard to keep it, but that was becuase their entire economy was built on it. In my opinion the more deplorable part of our history was the period of segregation trumped only by our treatment of native americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think many people agree with your analysis of our history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery still exists in this country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you are an employee of WAL-MART

[/ QUOTE ]

SHHHH! They don't know I've escaped.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then either you don't agree with me or you choose to ignore what it means that someone is born into advantagous circumstances and someone else is born in abject poverty.

[Mickey Brausch]

There are actually very few things I disagree with you on the points expressed in the post.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite plz.

[/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I take it you deny ever claiming that monopolies do not harm the consumer in an AC society. Could've misunderstood.

[ QUOTE ]
Without the framework of the state, the corporation cannot exist as we know it.

[/ QUOTE ]We agree.

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

[/ QUOTE ]You've never seen anyone rage against corporations?

[/ QUOTE ] Of course, I have and I know that there is a strong, healthy and promising movement afoot against the excesses of corporate, capitalist greed. But this has not translated to a significant percentage of citizens moving for the abolition of liability-limiting, incorporation laws.

And the images you posted of people protesting Starbucks puzzle me. Those protesters vandalizing coffee shops are against capitalism altogether! I do not know what they intend to replace it with (they are not an ideologically coherent movement -- which might be just as well) but I do know that they are raging not just against Globalisation or so-called Neo-Liberalism but against the second component of the term anarcho-capitalism...

Mind you, they seem to mostly demand that the state intervenes and puts a stop to corporate greed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] Ah, here we are, again. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Those ideas might just be workable, or sustainable under the light of day, if we were to start from a theoretical zero point in human development. But when we already have state's laws, actual corporations roaming the earth, and so forth, what are we supposed to do? Ignore the existence of those corporations and their power to limit liability? We can't, of coutse. What we can do is agitate for their weakening and hopefully their eventual elimination.

But the only way to do this is to act in concertn with others, if not as a society at least as a significantly large group of like-minded people, who decide on their actions democratically.

Y'know - typical mob stuff... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Mikey Brausch

[pvn]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you believe that give it to them. Nobody is stopping you.

Are you suggesting that other people be *forced* to provide these opportunities?

[pvn]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably need to read some more history.

If this were true, then slavery would have been outlawed in the US as soon as the states that were supposedly blocking such legislation seceeded.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]



Yes, many had. But not all.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I'd really like to see this cost/benefit analysis. How much are you going to value each life at?

How much better off do you need to make some person 150 years from now to justify killing someone today?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll wait.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There are actually very few things I disagree with you on the points expressed in the post.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite plz.

[/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I take it you deny ever claiming that monopolies do not harm the consumer in an AC society. Could've misunderstood.

[/ QUOTE ]

You win, Mickey. I have no [censored] idea what you're talking about. You have succeeded in your task to completely bamboozle me. Please connect the dots here. What does my statement that corporations are not free market entities have to do with monopolies harming consumers?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without the framework of the state, the corporation cannot exist as we know it.

[/ QUOTE ]We agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you must agree that corporations are not free-market entities.

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

[/ QUOTE ]You've never seen anyone rage against corporations?

[/ QUOTE ] Of course, I have and I know that there is a strong, healthy and promising movement afoot against the excesses of corporate, capitalist greed. But this has not translated to a significant percentage of citizens moving for the abolition of liability-limiting, incorporation laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moving the goalposts.

[ QUOTE ]
And the images you posted of people protesting Starbucks puzzle me. Those protesters vandalizing coffee shops are against capitalism altogether!

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? You said there's nobody calling for abolition of corporations as we know it, I provided a counterexample. Case closed.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not know what they intend to replace it with (they are not an ideologically coherent movement -- which might be just as well) but I do know that they are raging not just against Globalisation or so-called Neo-Liberalism but against the second component of the term anarcho-capitalism...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But that's irrelevant here.

[ QUOTE ]
Mind you, they seem to mostly demand that the state intervenes and puts a stop to corporate greed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] Ah, here we are, again. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes or no? Yes or no. Two simple questions there.

[ QUOTE ]
Those ideas might just be workable, or sustainable under the light of day, if we were to start from a theoretical zero point in human development. But when we already have state's laws, actual corporations roaming the earth, and so forth, what are we supposed to do? Ignore the existence of those corporations and their power to limit liability? We can't, of coutse. What we can do is agitate for their weakening and hopefully their eventual elimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still waiting for an answer there. Yes or no?

[ QUOTE ]
But the only way to do this is to act in concertn with others, if not as a society at least as a significantly large group of like-minded people, who decide on their actions democratically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any time you're ready.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
What does my statement that corporations are not free market entities have to do with monopolies harming consumers? Please connect the dots here.

[/ QUOTE ] Monopolistic power is, in fact, exercised by corporations. For the past century or so, I know of no individual who was not "incorporated" exercicing monopolistic power. Therefore, if monopolies are good for the consumer (as I thought you claimed), then those monopolies were corporations -- which now, suddenly, for you, are not truly free market. They are doing things that are good for the consumer ...yet they are not free market?

What dots are you seeing exactly? Better lie down.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without the framework of the state, the corporation cannot exist as we know it.

[/ QUOTE ]We agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you must agree that corporations are not free-market entities.

[/ QUOTE ] Only if we accept that a capitalist "free market" and a state that passes and enforces laws are incompatible. (I don't.)

Anything non-Austrian is not capitalist, I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've never seen anyone rage against corporations?

[/ QUOTE ] Of course, I have and I know that there is a strong, healthy and promising movement afoot against the excesses of corporate, capitalist greed. But this has not translated to a significant percentage of citizens moving for the abolition of liability-limiting, incorporation laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moving the goalposts.

[/ QUOTE ] Why am I moving the goalposts? The issue for you might be something else, and quite academic, too, but for me, the issue is the real-life balance of power : so far, an insignificantly small percentage of the population in western democracies seems ready to vote for the abolition of corporate entities[/b].

So, while I might have seen, indeed, lots of people "railing against" corporations (in fact, against capitalism), I have not seen this translating into any sort of serious political movement -- yet...

[ QUOTE ]
You said there's nobody calling for abolition of corporations as we know it, I provided a counterexample. Case closed.

[/ QUOTE ]I should have elaborated on the political context then, as above. Point taken.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]No, I did not.

But I do not agitate against this situation, there are no significant popular movements afoot to do away with the pertinent legislation, the politicians running for office are clearly stating in their agenda that they will promote corporate power, etc etc. Aren't those implicit but quite clear endorsements by the general public of the current situation?

If the public are not happy with it and they want things changed, where is the agitation against the status quo?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the only way to do this is to act in concert with others, if not as a society at least as a significantly large group of like-minded people, who decide on their actions democratically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any time you're ready.

[/ QUOTE ]You are no longer afraid of "mob rule"?? You would be ready to throw your hat in the ring and take action against the establishment? Fascinating.

You are going to do what exactly that is not coercive nor authoritarian, when you will be trying to change things?

Dare I imagine a bed-in ?

Mickey Brausch

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What does my statement that corporations are not free market entities have to do with monopolies harming consumers? Please connect the dots here.

[/ QUOTE ] Monopolistic power is, in fact, exercised by corporations. For the past century or so, I know of no individual who was not "incorporated" exercicing monopolistic power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not following. All bank robbers are human. That doesn't mean all humans are bank robbers.

And you're wrong, anyway. I have a monopoly on my labor. I am not incorporated.

And you're still making irrelevant points, since corporations (as we know and love them) do not exist in a free market.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, if monopolies are good for the consumer (as I thought you claimed),

[/ QUOTE ]

Still waiting for a cite. I've claimed that monopolies (in a meaningful sense) are unachievable without state intervention. I've also claimed that it's possible to achieve very high marketshare in a free market (theoretically 100% is possible) but the only way to do so (without using coercive force, of course) is by actually serving customers better than anyone else can.

[ QUOTE ]
then those monopolies were corporations -- which now, suddenly, for you, are not truly free market. They are doing things that are good for the consumer ...yet they are not free market?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state sent a truck full of big men with hoses to put out the fire in my house. This benefited me, so therefore the state must be a free market entity?

[ QUOTE ]
What dots are you seeing exactly? Better lie down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is a good idea. Your reasoning is making me dizzy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without the framework of the state, the corporation cannot exist as we know it.

[/ QUOTE ]We agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you must agree that corporations are not free-market entities.

[/ QUOTE ] Only if we accept that a capitalist "free market" and a state that passes and enforces laws are incompatible. (I don't.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this is theoretically possible. It would require voluntary explicit consent from all parties, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I moving the goalposts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your original statement didn't specify any "significant percentage" criteria.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]No, I did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we're done here.

[ QUOTE ]
But I do not agitate against this situation,

[/ QUOTE ]

So *you* don't mind, so it's OK to impose upon everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any time you're ready.

[/ QUOTE ]You are no longer afraid of "mob rule"??

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this was merely an expression of boredom with your sophistry and avoidance of a simple yes or no answer. You've answered, I'm satisfied. The bluster was entertaining but irrelevant. Off-topic tirades and monologues are your strong suit, though, stick with what works.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
All bank robbers are human. That doesn't mean all humans are bank robbers.

[/ QUOTE ] The people protesting the power of corporations (your own images, kindly provided) were not protesting against monopolies; they were smashing the windows of Starbucks because they disagree with what they do as a corporate entity, in impunity.

So, plenty clear : Not all corporations are monopolies; most corporations, if not every one of 'em, are hated by anti-capitalists, i.e. people who will stone you if you start going on about yer "free market"!..

Wait, what was that about robbing a bank? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a monopoly on my labor. I am not incorporated.

[/ QUOTE ]That is not a monopoly - and you (should) know it. You accuse me of "moving the goalposts" and now you change the meaning of the very word on me!

Let me guess -- you are also a walking monopsony. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Corporations (as we know and love them) do not exist in a free market.

[/ QUOTE ]Then I guess we do not have a free market anywhere in the world except in the fevered imagination of some Austrian aficionados of spherical cows and their stubborn acolytes. If they are what the state is up against, we're gonna have the state with us for a long time.

[ QUOTE ]
I've claimed that monopolies (in a meaningful sense) are unachievable without state intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]You mean that, without laws, there would never be a commercial transaction between individuals without starting from zero every time. No laws, no rules, no regulations, no ..monopolies.

I guess you are right. If we dynamite a house, the cockroaches are all killed. (Maybe.)

[ QUOTE ]
I've also claimed that it's possible to achieve very high market share in a free market (theoretically 100% is possible) but the only way to do so (without using coercive force, of course) is by actually serving customers better than anyone else can.

[/ QUOTE ]And this will be done without forming a corporation but by acting as a lone individual, who has mastered some sort of far-reaching, persistent, competitive advantage?

Suddenly spherical cows seem more plausible.

[ QUOTE ]
Your reasoning is making me dizzy.

[/ QUOTE ]It's actually the blood returning to those brain cells. Put the damn pamphlets down already.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why am I moving the goalposts?


[/ QUOTE ] Your original statement didn't specify any "significant percentage" criteria.

[/ QUOTE ] I cannot clarify something without "moving the goalposts"?? Look like you have a problem when your opposite number does not take the BS lying down. Some anarchist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever "elect" such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
But I do not agitate against this situation,

[/ QUOTE ]So *you* don't mind, so it's OK to impose upon everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ] No, pay attention now: I did not vote for it, but I tacitly agreed to it. Moreover, I did NOT impose it on anyone else. Those who have elected to participate in such a tyrannical group of people tacitly accept the situation, again, by not doing anything about it.

You say "mob rule!", I say "Do something about it or shut up".

And the only way that you could do something about it and not find the likes of me opposing you (me, the citizen, and not just the state) is by going about it in a democratic, rather than an authoritarian, one-man-rule, kinda way...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any time you're ready.

[/ QUOTE ]You are no longer afraid of "mob rule"??

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this was merely an expression of boredom with your sophistry and avoidance of a simple yes or no answer. You've answered, I'm satisfied.

[/ QUOTE ]But I'm not! Don't leave me this way... Are you gonna "do something about it" or not? Are you gonna demonstrate, and smash a window or two, and throw rocks, or are you gonna sit on your ass debating about AC on the computer all day? Yes or No?

And if you're gonna "do something about it", please explain the non-authoritarian, non-coercive way you will achieve your aims.

This is truly interesting.

Mickey Brausch