When will slavery be financially viable again?

[shanek]

What I want to know it, why is it supposed to be financially unworkable to use slavery, yet using aniamls for labor is perfectly reasonable?

Who said it was? How many places in America use animals as a work force anymore? It's all mechanized. You don't have oxen pulling plows anymore; we have these things called "tractors," and you can get one at your local hardware store starting at about $500.

Now though lets get into the real economics

of proving WHY slavery will ALWAYS be more cost effective then wage labor.

Whenone pays wages they have to pay the worker enough for that worker to be able to provide at least food and shelter for himself, and in most cases also enough to help care for other family memebers who do not work in addition to other costs. The wage laborer has to pay for these things at market prices.

In the case of slavery the slave owner only has to provide food and shelter for the individual with no extra needs or wants being supplied and the cost of food and shelter is not paid for at market prices, the slave is typically forced to build his own shelter and provide his own food so the only cost if the labor value of the slaves time. The only other cost is for policing the salves and maintaining security.

Once again, your total dearth of economic knowledge is more than evident.

In a job market, it's about a lot more than working and earning a wage. When workers have a choice of whom they're going to work for, which does NOT happen with slavery, then there is competition in the job market and the employer has every incentive to offer not only competitive wages but a competitive benefits package as well. It's the supply/demand thing I posted earlier which you ignored and apparently learned nothing from. The result of all of this is not only a benefit to the workers, but to the businesses as well, who now have a more motivated work force and the benefits of the increases in wealth they bring.

The argument that slavery was naturally on its way out due to cost is just one o fhte more rediculous claims of free-marketers, who try to act like the "free-market" was naturally "solving the problem" (of course 100+ years too late) to show that government action to stop it was not "really needed".

QUIT LYING!!!!!!

1) You know PERFECTLY WELL that slavery was CODIFIED AND ENFORCED BY GOVERNMENT!!!! IT WAS IN THE CONSTITUTION, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!

2) Show me one Libertarian—ONE SINGLE LIBERTARIAN—who says that slavery should not be outlawed!

You KNOW these are false, yet you keep spouting it out anyway!

Slavery was perhaps on its way out, but not due to economics, due to changing morals and views, which were expressed by the act of civil war of course.

Why are we the only country in the world who had to have a Civil War to end slavery? And is Haiti the only other country to end slavery with violence (a slave uprising)? Why, in every other case, was slavery freed by peaceful means?

 

[Malachi151]

Who said it was? How many places in America use animals as a work force anymore? It's all mechanized. You don't have oxen pulling plows anymore; we have these things called "tractors," and you can get one at your local hardware store starting at about $500.

Which is exactly what I origionally said, that mechanization is what makes slavery (and for that matter all human and animal labor) obsolete, not wage labor.

Why are we the only country in the world who had to have a Civil War to end slavery? And is Haiti the only other country to end slavery with violence (a slave uprising)? Why, in every other case, was slavery freed by peaceful means?

Well, first of all it is not the only out of all history, but in the more modern sense it is quite simply becuase slavery was split in America into two regions, whereas this was not the case in other countries. In addition to this people, the strong consolidated power of other governments, as opposed to the realtively weaker federation of states in America, allowed single governments to put and end to slavery without challenge.

For example when Britain outlawed slavery, earlier than in America, they had a consolidated country who's whole power was in one body, instead of split into individual states. This allowed unity, and the lack of the threat of something like civil war.

This is why the rest of the American civil war was the rebirth of the United States with a now much stronger federal government. The power of the states was greatly deminished by the end of the Civil War. It was the power of the states that led to civil war in the first place.

Once again, your total dearth of economic knowledge is more than evident.

It is obviously a benefit to workers and the job market not to have slavery, duh. No one said that it was not. The benefits of not having slavery in the economic sense are obvious on the MACRO economic level. However, on the MIRCO econmic level, which is where most libertarians like to keep their heads slavery is a direct advantage to the individual slave owners.

Macro econmics and mirno econmicsare often in contention, this is where we see the differences between society and individual, and its something that almost every libertain I have talked to fails to understand.

 

[shanek]

Which is exactly what I origionally said, that mechanization is what makes slavery (and for that matter all human and animal labor) obsolete,

Then why have you been railing on me for saying the exact same thing? And why do you not recognize that mechanization, along with any technology that increases production, is a product of the free market?

You might also explain why the Luddites blamed the free market for mechanization, saying that it would put people out of work.

Well, first of all it is not the only out of all history, but in the more modern sense it is quite simply becuase slavery was split in America into two regions,

But the only reason for that was that the nothern states were richer and could afford to mechanize first. Saying that gives them the right to invade the South just smacks of hypocrisy.

For example when Britain outlawed slavery, earlier than in America, they had a consolidated country who's whole power was in one body, instead of split into individual states. This allowed unity, and the lack of the threat of something like civil war.

But that same unity is exactly what allowed slavery to thrive in the first place! Are you aware of all the troubles the US had with Spain throughout the 19th Century (even before the Civil War) because the Spanish monarchy believed in the unfetterd slave trade?

It was the power of the states that led to civil war in the first place.

No, it was the gradual loss of that power to the Federal government that caused the Civil War. And it resulted the way it did because those who won the war happened to be on the side of a big Federal government.

It is obviously a benefit to workers and the job market not to have slavery, duh. No one said that it was not.

Yes, you have! That's exactly what you've been saying all along! By pretending that slavery is the product of a free market economy (I'm still waiting to hear which free market economy started slavery to begin with) this is exactly what you're saying!

The benefits of not having slavery in the economic sense are obvious on the MACRO economic level. However, on the MIRCO econmic level, which is where most libertarians like to keep their heads

Most of my arguments are based on macroeconomics.

slavery is a direct advantage to the individual slave owners.

No, I just showed how free market wage earners are more of an advantage to individual businesses than slave labor.

Macro econmics and mirno econmicsare often in contention,

No, they aren't. PLEASE take an economics course!!!

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

US History should be re-written. Slavery wasn't ended by abolitionists, the civil war or Lincoln.

"The Market ended slavery, as the Market does all good things. Even make crops grow and cause the sun to rise. Slavery was out the door in the South, the War of Northern Agression only pre-longed it. The system was so inefficient, only poor people owned slaves. People who did not have slaves benefited from the wealth produced by creative cotton pickers. "

Remember cross out Aberham Lincoln and abolitionists and insert "Free Market".

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

2) Show me one Libertarian—ONE SINGLE LIBERTARIAN—who says that slavery should not be outlawed!

Robert Nozick

http://home.nvg.org/~rchg/anarchy/secF2.html

F.2.1 Do Libertarian-capitalists support slavery?
Yes. It may come as a surprise to many people, but right-Libertarianism is one of the few political theories that justifies slavery. For example, Robert Nozick asks whether "a free system would allow [the individual] to sell himself into slavery" and he answers "I believe that it would." [Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 371] While some right-Libertarians do not agree with Nozick, there is no logical basis in their ideology for such disagreement.

The logic is simple, you cannot really own something unless you can sell it. Self-ownership is one of the cornerstones of laissez-faire capitalist ideology. Therefore, since you own yourself you can sell yourself.

 

[shanek]

Slavery wasn't ended by abolitionists,

The abolitionists did a wonderful job ending slavery, but you'll notice they had the best success in the states that had already industrialized.

the civil war

The claim is the Civil War wasn't necessary to free the slaves, and that no one was saying it was a war to free the slaves until 1862. Both of these claims are easily confirmed by history.

or Lincoln.

Again, easily confirmed.

[pathetic strawman deleted]

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

On August 26, 1863, he (Lincoln) lectured white antiwar Northerners that when peace came, ?there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it

http://www.thelincolnmuseum.org/new/research/controversies.html


One word: JAR.

 

[shanek]

Robert Nozick

Nozick was an anarchist. Libertarianism ≠ anarchism. Try again.

 

[shanek]

http://www.thelincolnmuseum.org/new/research/controversies.html

One word: JAR.

How does quoting Lincoln from 1863 in any way rebut my claim that slavery wasn't used as a justification for the Civil War until 1862?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Nozick was an anarchist. Libertarianism ? anarchism. Try again.

The logic of his argument has been unanswered. You try again.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

The logic of his argument has been unanswered. You try again.

Very true, but also see:

Libertarian Party Website

Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick dies

[January 24] Harvard University professor Robert Nozick, who helped establish the intellectual legitimacy of the modern libertarian movement, has died.

Best known in libertarian circles as the author of the National Book Award-winning Anarchy, State & Utopia, Nozick died of stomach cancer on Wednesday, January 23. He was 63.

Nozick's contribution to libertarianism was hailed by Libertarian Party Executive Director Steve Dasbach.

"Robert Nozick made an important and lasting contribution to the libertarian movement," he said. "It is no exaggeration to say that Nozick's work -- especially Anarchy, State & Utopia -- helped create the philosophical and intellectual foundation that has allowed groups like the Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, and the Advocates for Self-Government to thrive.

"Although Nozick is gone, his ideas, influence, and contributions will live forever."

"Intellectual legitimacy"

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

How does quoting Lincoln from 1863 in any way rebut my claim that slavery wasn't used as a justification for the Civil War until 1862?

It doesn't, I was talking about people who get the "well if it wasn't for us whites" attitude.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The abolitionists did a wonderful job ending slavery, but you'll notice they had the best success in the states that had already industrialized.

Reminds me of a similair argument I heard from Marxists:

Ideas cannot come about without food, water, production i.e. economics.

Hence ideas are determined by economics.


Likewise, since industrialization was needed to end slavery, industrialization and the free market ended slavery.


This ignores the fact that necessary is not sufficient.

For example, oxygen and food were needed to end slavery, hence oxygen and food ended slavery.

Just because an object is necessary for something does not means it ends it nor do we credit it as the primary causal factor.

The claim is the Civil War wasn't necessary to free the slaves, and that no one was saying it was a war to free the slaves until 1862. Both of these claims are easily confirmed by history.

My source says otherwise:

Which was more important to Lincoln, saving the Union or freeing the slaves?

Lincoln was committed to both; he wanted to save the Union, but not at the cost of yielding his anti-slavery principles. To Lincoln, the United States constituted a great experiment in the idea that people could govern themselves freely; indeed, it was the world?s ?last, best hope? of proving that such a government could ?long endure.? Slavery negated the experiment in freedom by ?allowing the enemies of free institutions... to taunt us as hypocrites.? Lincoln wanted dearly to save the Union, but not at the cost of compromising the principles it represented.

On several occasions, Lincoln might have ended the Civil War and restored the Union, by renouncing emancipation and agreeing to the principle of popular sovereignty by which slavery could spread into the western territories. He also could have acted more aggressively to free the slaves, for example by supporting General Fremont's 1861 emancipation of slaves in Missouri, but at the cost of driving Kentucky and Missouri from the Union and losing the war. He chose to do neither, because he sought both freedom and Union, as two indispensible elements of the American Experiment.

(Bold is mine)


http://www.thelincolnmuseum.org/new/research/controversies.html

Lincoln was a situationalist.

 

[shanek]

The logic of his argument has been unanswered.

What logic? I asked for a Libertarian, he answered with an anarchist.

 

[shanek]

Very true, but also see:

Proving what? Yes, he did a lot for the Libertarian movement, but allowing slavery is hardly a Libertarian idea.

 

[shanek]

It doesn't, I was talking about people who get the "well if it wasn't for us whites" attitude.

Who was getting that?

 

[shanek]

Likewise, since industrialization was needed to end slavery,

I didn't say it was needed to end slavery. I said it made it easier to end slavery. I'm really getting sick of you putting words into my mouth.

My source says otherwise:

From Lincoln's 1861 inaugural address:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

And that's all I need to rebut you.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Who was getting that?

JAR, who is a racist. See what he said about Kobie Bryant.

 

[shanek]

JAR, who is a racist. See what he said about Kobie Bryant.

I didn't get that from reading his post, but then I didn't see whatever thread he mentioned Bryant in, either.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

From Lincoln's 1861 inaugural address:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that?

The rest they can read for themselves.

But when was this? Before the war? And how does this refute the claim that Lincoln could have ended the war earlier by allowing slavery into the West and that he was unconcered with it?