Thread: The world I would love to live in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikssfUhAlgg

Are you honestly debating that in any sense slavery is legitimate?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Slavery is wrong no matter what the context and you can normalize it all you want, but it is wrong. Going to prison and being made a slave are very different things....and it's not exactly nuanced. Nor is being a ward of the state similar to being a slave. A million terrible things have been done throughout history that doesn't make them right or normal. SRP is a privately owned entity that is free to do anything they want with their site while our country is not. Personally, I think felons at least should be able to vote. Why do we even have a justice system if their is truly no way to ever completely pay your debt? I understand some crimes are unforgivable and those people should be left in prison, but others should do their time and that be the end of it. We need to to reintegrate people and how is that possible if they are forever apart from society? Either they paid their debt or they stay in prison.

We are not talking about the Roman Empire here, we are talking about US in 1789. It is also not about criminals who are punished by imprisonment, we are talking about 30%-50% of the population, with their fault being too weak to resist effectively.
Again this is not a morality of 21st century - it is the morality of the 18th century and of the same people who founded a country based on the ideal that all people are created equal and have unalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It doesn't matter what other countries were doing, this was a brand new country setting its own principles and making its own choices.
I am sorry but 'criminals' and 'war prisoners' does sound like an excuse - did US enslave the prisoners in the wars it won?

It was probably the biggest issue of the times and apparently when the choice came down to personal enrichment at the expense of others vs. putting that principle of alienable rights in practice we know what was more important. Regardless of the indirect phrasing it was about ensuring the slavery as an institution.
It is one thing to argue that it was the necessity of realpolitik, but when morality comes into this, I don't see how can one turn a blind eye. Would we grant Hitler's antisemitism a pass just because the times were different back then and he genuinely thought non-arians were inferior. Mr. Jefferson also had theories that black people were inferior, but didn't think that's enough reason to exterminate them, just enough to lay claim on anything they could produce.

The exact text about taxation is:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

The two things that are stated are broad categories, not specifics. It seems to me that the current spending under the first category is primarily for 'Offense', but that's what the Constitution is for - to provide the broad framework under which the specifics are decided. The lawfully elected representatives have determined what the current taxes and the current expenditures are to be, so this means they are correct by presumption. If you disagree there is the Supreme Court to determine if you are correct or not - file a lawsuit and prove it.

If you want a populist argument for what 'we all want' take the signature accomplishment of the 'progressive era' - social security. It is by far the most popular program of the federal government. Taking it away is a political suicide - anybody who tries would be cast away by the voters in a heartbeat.
And it went through the process of being challenged in the Supreme Court and we all know the result. According to the Constitution this makes it perfectly constitutional.

Originally Posted by aa1192

Are you honestly debating that in any sense slavery is legitimate?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Slavery is wrong no matter what the context and you can normalize it all you want, but it is wrong. Going to prison and being made a slave are very different things....and it's not exactly nuanced. Nor is being a ward of the state similar to being a slave. A million terrible things have been done throughout history that doesn't make them right or normal. SRP is a privately owned entity that is free to do anything they want with their site while our country is not. Personally, I think felons at least should be able to vote. Why do we even have a justice system if their is truly no way to ever completely pay your debt? I understand some crimes are unforgivable and those people should be left in prison, but others should do their time and that be the end of it. We need to to reintegrate people and how is that possible if they are forever apart from society? Either they paid their debt or they stay in prison.

You are making a false argument. "Legitimate" has nothing to do with right or wrong. legitimate means following, or in accordance with, the law.

Like it or not, slavery was legal all over the world for thousands of years. That's history. You can't re-write history just because you find some of it unpleasant.

Seriously, you don't find the 3/5th text of the constitution a really perverse incentive towards expansion of slavery?

Here it is how it works in practice:

The more slaves I own, the more 40% tax discount I get (remember I get to have everything they produce minus the costs to keep them alive) and more political representation I get (remember they do not get the vote, I get to vote on their behalf - may be not literally but effectively in a group interest way).

Let's not switch between moral and legal whenever it is convenient - US claimed its right to existence on moral grounds, to right a number of injustices including taxation without representation. It simply failed to live to that from the start and had full knowledge of this moral failure (yes the founding fathers themselves called it amoral, including Jefferson when he was speaking on behalf of the country as president).

Originally Posted by gugi

We are not talking about the Roman Empire here, we are talking about US in 1789.

And I'm still not convinced that they got it wrong. In fact, I think they got it right. Neither the US or the Constitution created slavery. Slavery existed long before the US or the Constitution. But the exceptional concept of natural unalienable rights, shared by all humans, and expressed in the American Declaration, and coded into law by the US Constitution/ Bill of Rights helped to end slavery in the US. That's progress.

The so called "progressive" rejection of universal and unalienable human rights is what was wrong with the world to begin with. Any return to that kind of thinking is not progress at all. Instead it's going backwards to the same age old dangerous type of thinking practiced by tyrants, dictators and thugs that have enslaved and violated humans for thousands of years. No thanks.

This is simply not true. Slavery ended earlier (roughly one generation) in Britain than it did in US, and with less bloodshed, meaning that US had negative impact on that particular issue.

It's news to me that 'progressives' want/wanted a return to the thinking of tyrants, dictators, and thugs - could you please elaborate and provide specific examples?

Originally Posted by gugi

Seriously, you don't find the 3/5th text of the constitution a really perverse incentive towards expansion of slavery?

Here it is how it works in practice:

The more slaves I own, the more 40% tax discount I get (remember I get to have everything they produce minus the costs to keep them alive) and more political representation I get (remember they do not get the vote, I get to vote on their behalf - may be not literally but effectively in a group interest way).

Let's not switch between moral and legal whenever it is convenient - US claimed its right to existence on moral grounds, to right a number of injustices including taxation without representation. It simply failed to live to that from the start and had full knowledge of this moral failure (yes the founding fathers themselves called it amoral, including Jefferson when he was speaking on behalf of the country as president).

Answer to first question: No

Legal and moral are two different things, so there is no switching between the two. Another false argument.

Failed to live to what from the start? To right the injustices of King George against the American colonies?

Originally Posted by gugi

This is simply not true. Slavery ended earlier (roughly one generation) in Britain than it did in US, and with less bloodshed, meaning that US had negative impact on that particular issue.

You said earlier that we are talking about the US in 1789 (and NOT the Roman Empire). You are now bringing up the British Empire. Be consistent.

Originally Posted by gugi

It's news to me that 'progressives' want/wanted a return to the thinking of tyrants, dictators, and thugs - could you please elaborate and provide specific examples?

It's news to me too since I never wrote that.

Originally Posted by honedright

You said earlier that we are talking about the US in 1789 (and NOT the Roman Empire). You are now bringing up the British Empire. Be consistent.

I am consistent - you brought up the end of slavery as a consequence. So I simply compared the trajectory that you brought up with that of the country from which US split off. So your assertion for the positive effect of the US Constitution doesn't seem to hold water. In the absence of it the slavery would've ended earlier. Here is your post:

Originally Posted by honedright

But the exceptional concept of natural unalienable rights, shared by all humans, and expressed in the American Declaration, and coded into law by the US Constitution/ Bill of Rights helped to end slavery in the US. That's progress.

Originally Posted by honedright

It's news to me too since I never wrote that.

OK, so what specific ""progressive" rejection of universal and unalienable human rights" are you referring to, and what specific indications can you point towards "return to that kind of thinking", the "same age old dangerous type of thinking practiced by tyrants, dictators and thugs that have enslaved and violated humans for thousands of years". I referenced as large portions of your post as I could, so that I am referring exactly to what you did write.