I'm not arguing that Slavery wasn't a key factor in the growth of the US economy up to a point. It was a major component of our history and evolution even outside of economic terms.

However since we were not one of the wealthiest countries in the world once slavery ended or anytime soon there after, I don't know that you can attribute the success after WW2 to slavery directly. Our having so much of the worlds wealth after WW2 had as much to do with how much everyone else LOST as it did with how much we HAD (and how much we made off of their loss because we were not slowed economically by war).

Sure you can say we weren't poised to take advantage of a post-WW2 world without slavery but the same can be said about many things including: Territory purchases, agricultural and technological advancements, organized banking, FDIC insured banking, a centralized monetary system, removal of the gold standard, social and political shifts in the world...you get the idea.

In fact some could make the argument that indentured servitude could be given a lot of credit for our early growth as well, which had nothing to do with African Slavery. And also provides evidence that even in the absence of full fledged slavery, the early colonials would have found a way to exploit cheap labor to accomplish their goals and they would not need a native or african population to do so.

Kimmage, Kimmage.....Your integrity and noble intent is trumped by money every time. You messed with the cycling world's money-machine, man.

Imagine what would happen if people began to withdraw their support (indentured servitude) from entities like Exxon, Chase, or heaven forbid and meet the devil (insert national government of your region here).

This seems like a decent piece of scripted drama, but I don't understand how nobody even checked his dubious "clinically proven" claim. Do they really think that the other investor checked for proof before purchasing some for his indentured servants? I wonder if they're just salivating at the chance to get chummy with some of that oil money.

Although, even if it does actually work, I don't think it would sell all that well in first world countries where people would rather be sick than look stupid. China on the other hand, might need to order a billion, or more likely build their own factory and sell it for 30 cents.

Um, that's not cute. I believe the phrase is "indentured servitude"

And that woman could use the exercise.

Personally, I'm consistently impressed by the kind of recording quality that comes out of peoples relatively inexpensive and minimalist home studios.

It seems like big money record contracts (indentured servitude) are becoming less and less necessary.

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

@Crosswords
i am beginning to feel the stirrings of a man-crush on you.

look.
when it comes to money and economics schiff has made some great points and in 2004 was almost prophetic but when it comes to politics schiff appears to be a fish out of water and came to OWS with a self-righteous pre-conception and was rightly shown the error in his ways.

the argument about disbanding the EPA,the FDA or the DOE is a conflation.
we can argue the effeciency vs results but that is an entirely separate argument and has little to do with their actually designed roles and the necessity of those departments.

i do not understand those who keep touting the virtue of an un-regulated and "free" market.
unless you feel that indentured servitude,child labor and unsafe products that may harm or kill are perfectly acceptable.
it not only ignores history but conveniently ignores that uneven disparity that would be inevitable.
you think there is inequality now?
let a true free market become the mantra of pure capitalism and see what happens.
dont have resources and were not born in to an affluent family?
well go fuck yourself and make me a sandwich.

the game is rigged.
the system is fixed.
a CEO defrauds billions and walks away with 160 million in bonuses.
a man steals a pack of underwear and spends 30 days in jail,gets charged for the food and board and owes 500 hours of community service and a years probation at a 100 bucks a month.

all men are created equal under the eyes of the law?
i call bullshit.

>> ^blankfist:

Well, history has shown that more individual freedom (less collectivist government) leads to enrichment of lives, protection of the poor, etc. The US government early on was built on some basic and fundamental Libertarian ideas, though back then they were called liberal.
Prior to that, no other human government ever allowed such individual freedom. Not to say the US wasn't plagued with its problems, but it was a step in the right direction. Why go backwards?


I would say Rome did, and Greece. But that was more because of certain circumstances than how a government ran. I.e., we were a land of plenty, slaughtered the Indians, kept slaves to work, and then after those, indentured servants, and then illegal aliens and prisoners. However, those have dried up...

Greece was crap until conquest. Macedonia-what? Oh yeah, that poor state that Alexander came from...

Don't get me wrong, we love our Freedoms Blankfist, but history bodes for the circumstances of a nation--not the people themselves or how it is run. (I wouldn't say that Greece and Rome were particularly generous or freedom oriented, just like I wouldn't say America is.)

The point he was arguing against was an argument based on theoretical principles and rights not law. His reply for that matter was an equally exaggerated notion of that principle, the idea that public provision of health care is equivalent to slavery when this is far from the truth. Publicly funded or subsidized health implies nothing of the sort, it would merely imply that some institutions would willingly enter into a contract to provide a service payed for by tax dollars for the provision of a service. Nobody would ever force you to work as a doctor or work in a medical institution a party to this.

He then went on to unironically discuss the emergency service provision. Yes that is law but by the same token as he is implying publicly paid for or subsidized health care is slavery, he should apply the same principles here. If he really believes this law is equivalent to slavery then pray tell me what he is doing waxing lyrically about some hypothetical and not fighting against the indenturement of his constituents?
>> ^imstellar28:

RedSky, do you draw any distinction between what a person should do, and what a person is legally obligated to do?
>> ^RedSky:
How is the hypocrisy not immediately evident?
In the same speech he refers to mandatory health care as slavery and yet seems to have no qualms with either the Hippocratic oath as a principle and emergency room health care as a principle which implies the same thing.

Did some calcs. Assuming their calcs of costs of going to college (including tuition, loan interest, and lost income) that $1 million looks more like $540k over a lifetime. Now divide that into 40 years (age 25 to 65) and that comes out to about $13,500 per year, or $1,125 per month. That essentially dials down to $280 a week gross income. So that's how much your indentured servitude is worth? $7 an hour?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, why do you think giving people more freedoms is trading for a system with no freedoms of any kind?

Because you're not "giving people more freedoms", you're talking about removing the institution that defends our freedom.

>> ^blankfist:
Right now, hypothetically if you made slavery legal, do you think slavery would come rushing back to the US? I'd venture to say no, because the world's opinion on slavery has changed, as it does and will do for everything we collectively see as bad.

Well "everyone" agrees that murder is wrong, but still people do it all the time. And frankly, I think there's less consensus on the idea that slavery is wrong than on murder being wrong.

It probably wouldn't come "rushing" back though. Our oligarchs have studied history well enough to know that they'd need to go through a slow roll out of such a thing, accompanied by some Orwellian rebranding.

My guess is that they'd start by expanding prison labor, and reinstituting the practice of sending people to jail if they default on their debts. Then they'd just continue the kind of right-wing dehumanization of poor people and criminals we see today. They'd probably couple it with how selling off prison labor contracts to private businesses will help them with the state budget or allow a new round of high-income tax cuts, but then I'm pretty sure I'm paraphrasing a Republican governor of some state when I say that already.

It's only one more step to go from selling a "prison labor contract" where the prisoner goes back to a state-run cell each night, to being allowed to be kept in bondage by the owner of his contract in a privately owned cell.

Then, voila! Slavery is back in the USA.

Alternatively, just abolish minimum wage, outlaw union organization, and crush what's left of small business with anti-competitive business practices, and come up with some snappy new name for "indentured servitude" like "work-equity debt reconstruction", and you're 80% of the way there.

>> ^blankfist:
Government is a necessary evil in the processes of human evolution, but an evil nonetheless.


Eh. I know this is one of your favorites, but it's a bit Manichean, don't you think?

People are ultimately the ones who make the moral decisions. Even then, I don't really believe in "evil" people, so much as people who do things that are morally wrong.

What's the NRA slogan, "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Well, governments don't commit evil acts, people do.

>> ^blankfist:

@Psychologic, it's absurd because it's not a good comparison. If rent is too expensive, it requires a move to a new building. The person who owns the building doesn't lay some dominion over my person. If taxes are too expensive, it requires a change of citizenship. The people collecting taxes claim to have dominion over my person.

Depending on your peculiar definition for "dominion over my person", they certainly do. They're allowed to enforce quiet times, and restrict visitation, and general comings and goings (look at college dorms for an example).

Also, there was a time when the building owners laid total dominion over the person of their renters. The polite term was indentured servitude. Indentured servants were people who sold themselves into slavery by signing an agreement.

When we went and did that massive act of government theft known colloquially as "freeing the slaves", we made those sorts of arrangements illegal, even when voluntary. Without a state, such things would return again.
>> ^blankfist:

I voluntarily signed a lease so that contract and the rules in which I chose to be bound is voluntary. I didn't sign a "social contract" so that contract is compulsory. We don't choose where we're born. We all have a mother country.

Suppose some lady is renting a room from mintbbb and I, and she gives birth to a child while staying with us. We had an agreement with the lady about the rules of the house, and how we settle the bill when it comes to food and other living expenses. Do I need the kid's consent before I can enforce the same rules on the kid? Do I need the kid's consent before I ask him to contribute something to the operation of the house, even if he's 18?

If he doesn't like the rules & obligations that go with living in my house, is it fair for me to tell him he's free to live elsewhere then?

Am I obligated to let him stay, do whatever he pleases, and not contribute, simply because he never "signed" anything?
>> ^blankfist:
There's more to switching citizenship than just the cost of the move.
Right, but why is that? Have you actually looked at the process that an immigrant has to go through to become a US citizen? Have you actually heard the oath they have to swear, to be permitted to be a citizen?

What legal status do you think non-citizens should have within US borders? Immunity from prosecution for all crimes? No obligation to pay taxes?

@NordlichReiter, I posted this because if we're going to have a debate about a military draft, I wanted to elevate it to a higher level.

Going into watching this the first time, I had a pretty solid belief that a volunteer military service was the best way to go.

I came away from it thinking that maybe the old system (compulsory conscription that you could hire someone else to fulfill) is more just.

I think that you, like me, have some difficulty separating your feelings about war from feelings about the draft. I don't want there to be wars, period, and I definitely don't want military service foisted on me. But a country without a military doesn't stay a country for long, and we need some sort of system for deciding who in our society must fight.

On paper, I like the volunteer system. But the thing is, you don't volunteer to fight in a particular theater of war, for a duration of your own choosing, with freedom to only participate in conduct suiting your morals. You basically get a choice to sign your life over to the military for a fixed period of years, or go find something else to do. That's indentured servitude, period.

I'd say that if you follow consistent right- or left-wing ideology, the "volunteer" system is ultimately immoral. For the right, you should prefer a completely mercenary army -- a true volunteer army. For the left, you should prefer a system that spreads the duty around in a more egalitarian fashion, and ensures that rich Harvard students would be as likely to get called upon for service as members of a poverty-stricken community.

To me, I like the idea of requiring all military-aged members of politicians' families being conscripted, if they support beginning, or continuing a war. But then, that's more about my feelings about war, than about the draft...