Whitewashing US history with 'patriotic education' -Trump

[JonNC]

And you failed at that attempt. The slave market was not government controlled. It was sanctioned the same way the patent system is sanctioned today.

For you to take your stand, you must oppose individual rights. I don’t. The government passed laws to protect the plantation owners. Giving government a free pass on this is astonishing.
As for patents, they are intended to protect individual intellectual property rights. What the Democrats did during slavery was the opposite.
Certainly, government can do good or do Ill. It has the best chance of doing good when it protects individual rights.

And that was true of the slave market as well. Anyone with a slave to sell could sell him.

Full stop. As you can see, this is not a feee market. ISTM only one who has low regard for the rights of the individual could hold this as a free market.

Anyone with money to buy one could buy one.

Only one believes it is okay to buy and sell human beings Would consider this a free market. It is Orwellian to believe so. Free is slave and slave is free.

Citizens had the right to participate in the business relationship to whatever extent they desired and had the capital for.

Again, government undermining individual rights. The Dred Scott decision effectively denied citizenship for American blacks. Chief Justice Roger Taney and the other Democrats on the Court made that decision while the two Republicans voted against it.
So much for government merely allowing slavery.
So, just because government denied individual rights, doesn’t mean people don’t have them.
Nothing here changes. Slaves were forced into a business relationship that denied them their rights. That is contrary to a free market. It is the opposite of a free market.

If you are referring to the slaves themselves, the situation is the same as any poor white with regard to participation in the market. If you don’t have the money, you can’t participate in the market.

Perhaps the most absurd argument you’ve made yet, that poor people are like slaves.
The fact is, when I was young and had no money, I participated in the free market, first at a minimum wage. I participated in the free market willingly. The agreement between my boss and me was mutual.

Someone who is totally disabled cannot sell his labor.

It is disturbing indeed to compare someone who is disabled to a slave.

 

[JonNC]

The Union may have been fighting to abolish slavery (after the rallying cry of preserving the Union fell flat) but the Southerners certainly were not fighting for slavery - it may have been an economic issue for the states, but not for the men who were in the ranks.

Well, the Union, the republic was indeed fighting to end slavery. As I said, there were additional issues.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And you failed at that attempt. The slave market was not government controlled. It was sanctioned the same way the patent system is sanctioned today.

For you to take your stand, you must oppose individual rights. I don’t.

I don’t either. But capitalism under slavery did.

The government passed laws to protect the plantation owners. Giving government a free pass on this is astonishing.

Astonishing or not, it is what capitalism did.

As for patents, they are intended to protect individual intellectual property rights.

which in turn infringes on the individual rights of someone else to use the same idea. No matter how closely you look, you won’t find any requirement for general individual rights in the definition of capitalism. You will find things about the rights of people to buy and sell stuff. But that is all. Capitalism does not say anything, for example, about the right to free speech, or religion, or the right to bear arms. Those are individual rights too, but they have nothing to do with capitalism.

What the Democrats did during slavery was the opposite.

There was no Democratic Party for the first 200 years of slavery in the US.

Certainly, government can do good or do Ill. It has the best chance of doing good when it protects individual rights.

That is true. Can we get back to talking about capitalism? That was the question, right? Whether slavery was a capitalist enterprise?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And that was true of the slave market as well. Anyone with a slave to sell could sell him.

Full stop. As you can see, this is not a feee market. ISTM only one who has low regard for the rights of the individual could hold this as a free market.

A free market does not necessarily mean a moral market. One can recognize that the slave market was a free market without calling it a “good” market. Of course it was evil. And free as a market too.

Anyone with money to buy one could buy one.

Only one believes it is okay to buy and sell human beings Would consider this a free market.

Again, free market does not always mean “good” market. Of course it is not OK to buy and sell human beings. But sometimes that’s what free markets do.

Citizens had the right to participate in the business relationship to whatever extent they desired and had the capital for.

Again, government undermining individual rights. The Dred Scott decision effectively denied citizenship for American blacks. Chief Justice Roger Taney and the other Democrats on the Court made that decision while the two Republicans voted against it.
So much for government merely allowing slavery.

The Patent office shows “so much for government merely allowing people to invent things.” Same thing.

So, just because government denied individual rights, doesn’t mean people don’t have them.

Of course not. I don’t deny that people have individual rights. I just deny that capitalism has anything to do with ensuring all those rights.

 

[Boomster1]

Again, government undermining individual rights. The Dred Scott decision effectively denied citizenship for American blacks. Chief Justice Roger Taney and the other Democrats on the Court made that decision while the two Republicans voted against it.

I don’t disagree with the facts as presented. I just wanted to point out that Democrat and Republican didn’t mean the same thing back then.

It is accurate to state “President Lincoln was a member of the Republican Party”. However, when you look at Lincoln’s legacy, he was a complex political character. He probably was socially left of center but fiscally conservative. Many people of his time believed he was a pawn of the banks.

Lincoln spoke many times about returning America to its roots. He spoke eloquently about our founding fathers and their values. Yet, he shed his political instincts and dove into the issue of slavery. Initially, Lincoln spoke of maintaining the status quo and not permitting slavery to expand beyond the existing slave states. He didn’t stop there. He eventually moved toward the position that black people were fully human and endowed with the same rights as whites by our creator. Finally, his position hardened to the point that he ordered Northern armies to invade the Southern States in order to preserve the Union. Just a few years later, Lincoln formerly freed the slaves. Lincoln also signed the first Federal Income Tax into law in 1861.

You could even argue that Lincoln cast aside the existing republican system of states’ rights and replaced it with a more centralized form of government. Post-1865 America emerged with a much stronger federal government than the one that existed in 1860.

Like most presidents, Lincoln found it easier to master rhetoric than it was to maintain fidelity to one’s rhetoric when called to govern.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t either. But capitalism under slavery did

Actually, it didn’t.

Astonishing or not, it is what capitalism did.

In your last post, you gave government a pass on slavery. That’s astonishing. Free markets were not part of the Democrat policy.

There was no Democratic Party for the first 200 years of slavery in the US.

There’s been thousands of years of slavery. It continues today.

That is true. Can we get back to talking about capitalism?

Sure. Capitalism promotes individual rights. Socialism is the modern progressive form of slavery.

 

[JonNC]

A free market does not necessarily mean a moral market.

But it does mean free. People act of their free will. Without this individual right, it is not a free market.

One can recognize that the slave market was a free market without calling it a “good” market.

Except that it isn’t a free market.

Again, free market does not always mean “good” market. Of course it is not OK to buy and sell human beings. But sometimes that’s what free markets do.

The buying is not the issue. The issue is the individual right to act on one’s inherent rights. Slavery takes that off the table. Hence, there is nothing free about it.

The Patent office shows “so much for government merely allowing people to invent things.” Same thing.

It is not the same thing when government protects rights and when government dies not protect rights.

rights, doesn’t mean people don’t have them.

Of course not. I don’t deny that people have individual

Of course not. I don’t deny that people have individual rights

Have you not claimed that government determines rights? Or am I mistaken?

I just deny that capitalism has anything to do with ensuring all those rights.

Ensuring rights? No. Free markets do not insure rights. Rights come from our creator, or if you wish, natural law.

 

[JonNC]

. I just wanted to point out that Democrat and Republican didn’t mean the same thing back then.

I’m okay with that distinction as long as the left doesn’t throw out the “great switch” lie.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

One can recognize that the slave market was a free market without calling it a “good” market.

Except that it isn’t a free market.

The only thing free about a free market is the market. There is nothing in the definition of capitalism that guarantees any other freedom. It is outside the scope of what capitalism is. As I said before, capitalism does not guarantee freedom of religion.

Again, free market does not always mean “good” market. Of course it is not OK to buy and sell human beings. But sometimes that’s what free markets do.

The buying is not the issue. The issue is the individual right to act on one’s inherent rights.

That may be the issue for you, but it is not discussed in capitalism.

Of course not. I don’t deny that people have individual rights

Have you not claimed that government determines rights?

No. Stop trying to deflect from your failed argument and just admit that slavery was a capitalist exterprise.

I just deny that capitalism has anything to do with ensuring all those rights.

Ensuring rights? No. Free markets do not insure rights. Rights come from our creator, or if you wish, natural law.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with capitalism. No more deflections, OK?

 

[Boomster1]

Thank God I’m not the left

 

[GKMotley]

I got a couple of books on Escher. He’s complicated.

And, with respect to a particular title, missing.

 

[JonNC]

The only thing free about a free market is the market.

It is not a free market if the people are not free.
The market doesn’t exist without the people.

There is nothing in the definition of capitalism that guarantees any other freedom.

Free markets only when the individuals involved act freely.

As I said before, capitalism does not guarantee freedom of religion.

Nobody claimed it did. But if one is forced to attend a worship service against their will, that isn’t freedom of religion.

That may be the issue for you, but it is not discussed in capitalism.

You don’t get to independently decide that.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with capitalism.

Free markets must involve individuals who are permitted to be free.

No more deflections, OK?

Don’t continue to misrepresent free markets. Okay?

 

[JonNC]

Thank God I’m not the left

Great. I assume you won’t abide that nonsense either.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The only thing free about a free market is the market.

It is not a free market if the people are not free.
The market doesn’t exist without the people.

The people engaged in buying and selling are free to do that. The fact that there are some others who are not engaged in the market and who are not free is terrible, but it still is a free market. Again, go with an authoritative definition of “free market” and you will see this is so.

There is nothing in the definition of capitalism that guarantees any other freedom.

Free markets only when the individuals involved act freely.

with respect to freedom of religion? Certainly not. You can have a free market without freedom of religion. The only freedom that must be in a free market is the freedom to buy and sell.

As I said before, capitalism does not guarantee freedom of religion.

Nobody claimed it did.

Ah, so capitalism can exist without some individual freedoms. Now hold that thought, and just consider how many other freedoms are not necessary for capitalism. The answer: all of them, except for buying and selling.

That may be the issue for you, but it is not discussed in capitalism.

You don’t get to independently decide that.

I didn’t decide that. The authoritative definitions of capitalism decided that.

 

[JonNC]

The people engaged in buying and selling are free to do that.

Not all of them. Slaves, who were clearly forced into participating in the buying and selling, were not free to do that.

The fact that there are some others who are not engaged in the market and who are not free is terrible, but it still is a free market.

Except they were engaged, by force, against their will. That is not a free market.

The only freedom that must be in a free market is the freedom to buy and sell.

And the slaves were denied that freedom. Not a free market.

with respect to freedom of religion? Certainly not. You can have a free market without freedom of religion.

You cannot have freedom of religion if people are forced to participate against their will. It is not a free market if people are forced into it against their will.

The only freedom that must be in a free market is the freedom to buy and sell.

And that freedom was denied some participants.

I didn’t decide that. The authoritative definitions of capitalism decided that.

You are not an authoritative figure brining an authoritative definition. It is not authoritative to say something is free when it is not.

 

[EssentialBeing]

Capitalism is Feudalistic, Autocratic by nature & the difference between labor having a choice or not is simply reflected in slavery by means of exploitation of the resource we call labor. I can see the point of slavery being a Fascist function in order to meet & exceed capitalistic outcomes. So yes exploitation of slaves was a capitalistic function.

Fascism is used to exploit slaves but the desired outcome is always about profit. Both socialism & capitalism at their extremes are very dangerous, however we can accept one but not the other, quite a hypocritical outlook.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The only freedom that must be in a free market is the freedom to buy and sell.

And that freedom was denied some participants.

That’s normal with capitalism. If you don’t have the capital you are not free to invest. If you don’t have something to sell, you can’t sell. If you don’t have money you can’t buy. The free market is free to those with the means to engage in it.

LeafByNiggle:

I didn’t decide that. The authoritative definitions of capitalism decided that.

You are not an authoritative figure brining an authoritative definition.

I asked you for an alternate “non-leftist” authoritative definition of capitalism and you chose to use the very reasonable ones I cited. So, yes, Merriam-Webster is authoritative.

 

[JonNC]

That’s normal with capitalism.

No, it isn’t. Socialism denies rights.

If you don’t have something to sell, you can’t sell.

Most people have something to sell. Their time and labor. As I said earlier, that’s what I sold when I had virtually nothing.

So, yes, Merriam-Webster is authoritative.

Snd I pointed out where it contradicts your notion.

 

[Balto1]

You gotta admit it’s funny that parents are mad their kids know more history than they do

 

[JonNC]

Capitalism is Feudalistic, Autocratic by nature & the difference between labor having a choice or not is simply reflected in slavery by means of exploitation of the resource we call labor.

Free markets provide more people access to more wealth than any other economic system.

I can see the point of slavery being a Fascist function in order to meet & exceed capitalistic outcomes.

I see fascism as they see themselves: authoritarians who exercise strict government control or ownership of the means of production. In other words, socialists. They can claim they are capitalists, but they are not. People who live in authoritarian states, fascist or communist, live in a slave-like state.

Fascism is used to exploit slaves but the desired outcome is always about profit.

Only profit for the state. Mussolini tells us that it is all about the state. Nothing exists that doesn’t serve the state. They might allow the facade of private ownership, but it is a mere facade, a veneer, a lie.

Both socialism & capitalism at their extremes are very dangerous,

Agreed. While socialism is tyranny, free markets provides the most people with the greatest wealth, with protection of individual rights in a free society.