patrick.net

Reality says

You are once again showing your ignorance. Before World War I, people in west and central Europe could travel across country borders without passport until they hit the borders of the "notoriously despotic regimes" of Russia and Ottoman Empires. Most people today don't even know that degree of freedom.

How about British Imperial Lawyers? Could they ride in the First Class train car or Stagecoach they paid for, anywhere in the Empire without being thrown off or beaten before World War I?

The only time I would approve of violence is if was used against Democratic & Republican voters because they are destroying this nation.

Reality says

The slave population in the US was actually growing significantly slower than the US population in general. For exmaple, between 1850 and 1860, the US population grew by 35+%, whereas the slave population grew by less than 25%.

Was it growing or not? Was the Slave Population in 1790 a fraction of what it was in 1850, 1860? Was not the pre-Civil War period focused on John Brown and Bleeding Kansas and the Lecompton Constitution, with the South trying to increase the number of Slave States? What actual evidence do you have that Slavery was on the wane in the American South?

Reality says

No, this is not an apologia for slavery. However, slavery comes in many forms throughout human history. Public rental slavery resulting from centralized top down government treats the individual slave far worse than private owership of slaves.

"Amos don't want to leave my plantation where he works sunset to sundown picking my cotton, where my crackers whip him if he's sluggish, and he eats only cornbread and goober peas. Not for no Section 8 housing where he's free to come and go as he pleases anytime of day, and a WIC card that lets him buy a steak.

Amos is happy where he is, goddammit!"

thunderlips11 says

Yes, it's no accident that many states - and especially in States with a long history of brutal repression (the South) - take away voting rights forever from one conviction.

One of the primary purposes of the War on Drugs is to prevent minorities from voting. This is why Republicans love the War on Drugs.

CL says

I know your definition is the historical one, but I suppose I mean what is commonly accepted as "liberal" in America. American liberals love the idealized Gandhi or MLK, because it bolsters their belief in what I can only compare to magic; the oppressor will be overwhelmed with guilt, or the public will be so outraged that the oppressor will cave and a period of peace and harmony will ensue.

People redefine words to discredit ideas by confusing them with others. The philosophy of liberty, or liberalism, is one that reaches far beyond America. So when people try to confuse liberalism with leftist, socialism, or communism, I simply state the true definition. To do otherwise would be to abandon a long history of liberalism improving the lives of the common people.

As for the belief that the oppressor will be overwhelmed with guilt, that has never happened. Occasionally the public will be outraged, but that also has never resorted in reform of government, only in reform of culture.

Philistine says

Worse--if you are not even convicted, the arrest record alone will bar most gainful employment for years to come, if not your entire life (except in NY and CA, and perhaps a couple other non-Southern states I'm not aware of). You forego a large opportunity at upward mobility.

Yes, an arrest record without a conviction is defamation of the worst kind. Besides being a travesty to the individual, it is also bad for society because that individual is less productive and more likely to have to resort to leading a life of crime.

CL says

I know the Right tends to believe that Lincoln's "War of Aggression" was unnecessary because slavery was going to end soon on its own accord.

Ironically, private ownership of slaves would have ended in America sooner if the American Revolution had not been fought. Clearly the revolution was not about freedom.

indigenous says

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

Because moving wasn't nearly as easy back then, especially if you were penniless.

And are you really trying to make the point that blacks did not have it bad in the American South after the Civil War. Not even you are that stupid.

thunderlips11 says

Ah, and don't forget the Fugitive Slave Act:

If it's legal for me to kidnap people and make them work for me and beat them when they don't comply in my state, so if I visit your state, your state laws be damned - my kidnap victim is still my property.

The Fugitive Slave Act is exactly why Jury Nullification is necessary.

Reality says

The slave population in the US was actually growing significantly slower than the US population in general. For exmaple, between 1850 and 1860, the US population grew by 35+%, whereas the slave population grew by less than 25%.

That is utterly meaningless. The US population was growing fast because of high immigration and westward expansion. Comparing that to the birthrate of slaves is ridiculous bit of nonsense even for you. Let's see between 1845 and 1853 we picked up Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Those all became part of the US population. How much was the population of the south growing?

Restriction against individual movement across boundaries ( be it plantation boundaries, fief coundaries, "national" boundaries) makes the person _attached_ to the land owned by the entity with that boundary. That's the very definition of serfdom and slavery.

"Throughout British Empire" was an entirely different geographical concept contrasting with "western and central europe." Less than 5% of the land area of the British Empire was in western and central europe.

Ghandi had no difficulty riding first class stage coach anywhere in Britain itself or much of the continental Europe west of Russia and Turkey. India was/is east of Russian and Ottoman Empire, in case anyone needs a reminder.

The fact that slavery was already waning in the US could be seen from the very numbers you cited vs. US census data:

In 1790, slave count was close to 0.7 mil out of a US population count of close to 4 mil, or close to 18% of the population were slaves.

In 1860, slave count was close to 4, whereas US population WA over 31 mil; less than 13% of the population were slaves.

Even the Kansas conflict showed that slavery was on the wane: the free soil force did win the conflict despite very vocal and very organized pro-slavery attempt to preserve land south of the Mason-Dixon line for slavery. Part of the southern fear was the fact that slavery was clearly on the way out in the US, and they were becoming a minority not only in the House of Reps but also in the Senate soon if not already.

The Mason-Dixon Line was a compromise and agreement only a couple decades before between the pro- and anti-slavery forces regarding future statehood in territories. Kansas was clearly south of the line, yet the pro-slavery forces lost the state/ territory to anti-slavery forces on the ground. From their perspective, it was a clear breach of faith when the northern states allowed the free-soilers to ban slavery in that state instead of allowing slave ownership there as per Mason-Dixon comprise.

Fugitive Slave Laws showed 3 crucial facts

1. Slavery was and is a government-enforced institution. Without government enforcement paid for by other tax payers, it would be cost prohibitive for slave owners to enforce slavery and prevent escapes.

2. Yes, strong argument for Jury Nullification and de facto secession by the northern states like Minnesota from the inhumane slavery enforcement laws.

3. Lincoln was willing to enforce fugitive slave return laws in order to keep the union together. So it was nonsense to argue that the North fought the war to free slaves. Lincoln fought the war to preserve tariffs. South seceded to avoid tariffs as well as preserving their slavery institution, which was on the way out in the US as a whole.

In case it's not obvious, I'm in favor of the Southern States' right to secede and in favor of southern slaves' right to secede from plantations. Slavery in an independent CSA would not last long as the line of freedom for fugitives slaves would be moved from the Canadian border to Delaware, Pensylvania and Mason-Dixon Line. Those were the common sense views in the north before Lincoln banned antiwar newspapers in the north and threw editors into jails, in order to whip up a war frenzy to build his empire.

It's amusing that believers in the benevolence of government officials exercising bureaucratic monopoly power over individuals have no difficulty envisioning slave owners abusing their power. It's like believing people treat rental cars or government assigned cars (like in the USSR) better than people treat their own cars!

Oh yeah, that's right, those are the same sort of idiots who believed that socialist managers not owning the means of production but can only extract through slash and burn during their stint in office would be more efficient and benign compared to private capitalists managing the same resources.

Reality says

Restriction against individual movement across boundaries ( be it plantation boundaries, fief coundaries, "national" boundaries) makes the person _attached_ to the land owned by the entity with that boundary. That's the very definition of serfdom and slavery.

That is a strange definition. You learn something new everyday on patnet!! So If I restrict someone from entering my house, I am enslaving them????

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

Because moving wasn't nearly as easy back then, especially if you were penniless.

And are you really trying to make the point that blacks did not have it bad in the American South after the Civil War. Not even you are that stupid.

Bullshit, if it was as insufferable as Lips makes it out to be they would have moved.

bob2356 says

Not that many blacks lived in the north at all. If they were free why would they move? What would be their reason?

Almost half lived in the north.

I think Lincoln was a centralist and was in league with Roosevelt and Wilson regarding subjugating the states and intended mercantilism (cronyism) and a central bank. He was a Whig and this is what Whigs pushed. This is most likely why Lincoln wanted the war. Again 80% of the Federal Revenue was paid by the South, so Lincoln's hand was forced regarding this.

Not that any of yous will listen to this but it is quite relevant.

https://mises.org/library/lincoln-and-triumph-mercantilism

Reality says

It's amusing that believers in the benevolence of government officials exercising bureaucratic monopoly power over individuals have no difficulty envisioning slave owners abusing their power.

Uhh. Because our government is democratically elected, held accountable, consent of the governed and all that.

Slaves don't pick their masters or fire them.

No, Lost. However if you restrict a grown adult in full possession of his own faculty from leaving your house, that is de facto slavery.

When a bunch of land owners owning all adjacent lands collude with each other and prevent servants from entering without their masters' permission, they have in effect put together a serf - slavery system attaching the subjects to their land.

CL,

You are propagating The Divine Right of the One Who Gets Support From Less Than 25% of the Population. Most bureuacts don't even change regardless which person wins the 25% population support.

Reality says

When a bunch of land owners owning all adjacent lands collude with each other and prevent servants from entering without their masters' permission, they have in effect put together a serf - slavery system attaching the subjects to their land.

In effect you are subjugating the slaves control of their body to your demands?

Yes. The right to vote with one's feet is far more fundamental than the right to vote. The fundamental freedom of a human being is the right to pack up and leave, i.e. to secede.

Reality says

You are once again showing your ignorance. Before World War I, people in west and central Europe could travel across country borders without passport until they hit the borders of the "notoriously despotic regimes" of Russia and Ottoman Empires. Most people today don't even know that degree of freedom.

Only if they can't come up with the price of a carton of cigarettes and a birth certificate. The global labor market is incredibly fluid, except the US. Labour, businessmen, and tourists move very freely around the world. This is the biggest reason so many people speak english today. It's everyone's second language. Go any place with a lot of transit labour and there will be dozens of languages, but everyone communicates in english with anyone not speaking their language.

Sorry to tell you this, but the EU, which takes you from the atlantic to the borders of russia and the former ottoman empire, doesn't use passports within the EU zone. You just drive right across borders without stopping. So people today do know that degree of freedom.

Your history is weak. Until napoleon consolidated them in the early 1800's there weren't many countries in europe. You paid each city/duchy/fiefdom to pass through. You needed substantial funds to ecxesize your freedom to travel. As the countries organized and became political entities by mid 1800's they established fixed borders. After the world wide economic slump of 1873 countries were introducing boarder controls and immigration restrictions excluding "inferior" groups. Border controls of various types existed around Europe well before WWI.

In the US states regulated immigration until ellis island and other federal facilites opened in 1892. You first had to prove you were able to pass immigration inspection to the steamship agent before being given tickets. There was a substantial fine to the steamship companies for anyone turned back at ellis. Once arriving you had to pass both a medical and legal inspection. So people weren't travelling freely without restrictions into the US. Chinese weren't allowed in at all after 1882.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Not that many blacks lived in the north at all. If they were free why would they move? What would be their reason?

Almost half lived in the north.

Almost half of the free blacks. Gee whiz free blacks were a whopping 1.5% of the population. OMG, a whole .75% of the population was free blacks living in the north.
Census of 1860. http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm
New England 99% white
Mid Atlantic 98% white
Midwest 99% white
Far West 98% white

Reality says

No, Lost. However if you restrict a grown adult in full possession of his own faculty from leaving your house, that is de facto slavery.

When a bunch of land owners owning all adjacent lands collude with each other and prevent servants from entering without their masters' permission, they have in effect put together a serf - slavery system attaching the subjects to their land

Very few countries prohibit people from leaving. Most countries and before that villages and clans did set up rules for coming in-mostly for resources. Even animals will not allow strange animals to come into their 'territory". Lions , hyenas, other primates all have core territories they will defend against others of their kind.

Reality says

The fact that slavery was already waning in the US could be seen from the very numbers you cited vs. US census data:

In 1790, slave count was close to 0.7 mil out of a US population count of close to 4 mil, or close to 18% of the population were slaves.

In 1860, slave count was close to 4, whereas US population WA over 31 mil; less than 13% of the population were slaves.

and the numbers for the south in total were 12,237,998 total population with 3,950,051 slaves or 32% slave count, while the lower south had 6,395,143 total population with 2,754,526 slaves or 43.1%. This is waning? When almost 1 person in 2 is a slave in an entire section of the country. Who are you trying to bullshit here?

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm

bob2356 says

Almost half of the free blacks. Gee whiz free blacks were a whopping 1.5% of the population. OMG, a whole .75% of the population was free blacks living in the north.

Census of 1860. http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm

New England 99% white

Mid Atlantic 98% white

Midwest 99% white

Far West 98% white

That doesn't change the point.

In the context of the discussion, the time period before World War 1in Eruope was of course in reference to the mid to late 19th century free trade period in Europe. I.e. after the Vienna Conference after Napoleon Wars. The last time I checked, Ellis Island was not in Europe.

You are trying to bullshit: the single snap shot you took had little meaning. The deep south had even higher slave population percentage in 1790. Slaves and slave holders as PERCENTAGE OF population was declining.

There are no man made laws in place preventing anyone leaving the planet, except for the US having bureaucratic interpretation of law preventing expatriation to another planet. Yes, the bureaucrats already thought of that. LoL.

Attaching people to land is called serfdom or slavery. That is not a new definition. It's the same definition since ancient Roman and Greek time. Someone needs to learn basic history in addition to basic economics.

Lost,

People were not allowed to leave for most of the time since "government" was invented. That was the basis of feudal serfdom. Free movement of the people was a relatively new concept emblematic of Enlightenment (as opposed to medieval barbsrism). Many countires in the world however turned the clock backwards on the issue of liberty and freedom in the 20th centiry. Even today, more than half the world's populations live in countries that have significant limitations on emigration (leaving, not entering): almost all the big countries do today.

As for territorial defense, invasion refers to attempts by foreign powers trying to impose control over domestic population, not individual migrants not looking for any political power over domestic population.

Reality says

Ghandi had no difficulty riding first class stage coach anywhere in Britain itself or much of the continental Europe west of Russia and Turkey. India was/is east of Russian and Ottoman Empire, in case anyone needs a reminder.

But not everywhere in the British Empire, right?

I think everybody knows what happened when the well-educated Lawyer Gandhi took his first class seat on the train, and after he was kicked off by a White Conductor, and was later beaten later for not giving up his stagecoach to Whites in South Africa.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

Because moving wasn't nearly as easy back then, especially if you were penniless.

And are you really trying to make the point that blacks did not have it bad in the American South after the Civil War. Not even you are that stupid.

Bullshit, if it was as insufferable as Lips makes it out to be they would have moved.

Just because you don't like the truth, doesn't make it less so. History has borne out, time and time again, that conservatives are just plain evil. In every single battle of good vs. evil over the past 3000 years including the past 400 years of American history, conservatives have been the biggest, and often only, advocates for evil. Slavery, apartheid, suppression of women, gay bashing, immigrant bigotry, child exploitation, suppression of wages, gerrymandering voting districts, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, fraudulent voter ID laws, rigging elections, torture, rape, etc. In every single fight against evil, conservatives have been the foot soldiers and generals of evil.

If you don't want to be judged as immoral, then stop being so god-damn, cartoonishly evil.

Reality says

The fact that slavery was already waning in the US could be seen from the very numbers you cited vs. US census data:

In 1790, slave count was close to 0.7 mil out of a US population count of close to 4 mil, or close to 18% of the population were slaves.

In 1860, slave count was close to 4, whereas US population WA over 31 mil; less than 13% of the population were slaves.

So a class of people growing almost 600% in 70 years is example of a class on the wane, because other populations were growing faster.

Even the Kansas conflict showed that slavery was on the wane: the free soil force did win the conflict despite very vocal and very organized pro-slavery attempt to preserve land south of the Mason-Dixon line for slavery. Part of the southern fear was the fact that slavery was clearly on the way out in the US, and they were becoming a minority not only in the House of Reps but also in the Senate soon if not already.

It's also why the Homestead Act was passed in 1862 - similar acts had been proposed before, but the Southern Representatives were opposed, and wanted that land reserved for purchase as plantations run by slaves, not by free farmers. You can certainly grow food crops with slaves, as the Romans did, and which the South did to a large degree as well. After all, both the Master and Slave has to eat.

Did the South propose invading Cuba to lower the Tariff Rates? No, they wanted to add Slave States.

indigenous says

Not that any of yous will listen to this but it is quite relevant.

https://mises.org/library/lincoln-and-triumph-mercantilism

Mercantilism is the father of Capitalism. It's not an accident that Britain was the first country to Industrialize, and every Industrialized Country, including ones emerging today, have pursued Mercantilist policies of Tariffs, Import Substitutions, and Directed Government Investment.

The US would be like Mexico if we didn't have the Tariffs of the 19th Century to the 1960s.

"Attaching people to a nation has never been considered slavery under any society in any time in history."

You just keep parading your own ignorance with every post you make. Many if not most empires had state slaves: the Romans, the Chinese, the Memluks in Caliphate. Even before all of them, there were the Helots of Sparta, which were the classic example of state owned slaves, suffering fate worse than privately owned slaves: they were subject to Crypteia, open season for killing them for sport like open season hunting on deers.

Where in Europe was South Africa? LOL

95+% of land mass in the British Empire was not in Europe. The 19th century enlightened society in Europe ( which was relatively new to Europe even at that time) did not apply to the rest of the world. You know what else, in the 20th century, between 1914 and the 1990's, even Europe turned its clock backwards to the darker age.

Reality says

Where in Europe was South Africa? LOL

Again, you're dodging my point, By using the example of Europe and the lack of passports, you were trying to infer the the Laissez-Faire British Empire didn't impose restrictions on people like evil Statist Socialist Governments of Today. My point was to show that it did by illustrating the authoritarianism that even well-educated subjects encountered in the other "95%" of the Empire.

De jure slavery was waning in the entire western world at the time despite massive increase in slave population -- simply because the overall population growth was much faster than slave population growth, rendering slavery less and less important factor in the economy.

The reason why all population was growing rapidly in the west was due to trade and capitalistic free market economic take off making child mortality decline rapidly. The same as the 1960's population explosion in the third world when western technology was introduced to them.

Mercantilism was not at all the father of capitalism. Georgii, you are showing the bad economics education you received in the former USSR.

Mercantilism was invented by a bunch of wannabe central planners trying to explain the British success of the earlier century. The Mercantilist policies implemented by them in the rest of Europe led directly to colonial land grab competition of the late 19th and early 20th century. Then the soviets and their communist satellites tried to implement their version of Mercantilism / ruthless colonial exploitation of their internal population. The results were invariably disasterous.

Capitalism is based on mutually willing free trade, motivated by asymmetric information possessed by the two parties in each trade. Mercantilism having central planners control the movements of trade can not lead to successful price discovery.

I was not dodging your point at all. "British Empire" was not a homogeneous empire, or even a federal system where all members enjoy equal rights everywhere. It was a tholassocracy: each region was governed according to its own peculiarities. Some parts of it even had cannibals, like Northern Borneo.

If you think the Brits should have sent red coats to stop the cannibals or enforce bussing in India or South Africa, like the LBJ adminstration used the federal troops to enforce racial integration in public schools, you have the wrong country /system in mind.

Reality says

De jure slavery was waning in the entire western world at the time despite massive increase in slave population -- simply because the overall population growth was much faster than slave population growth, rendering slavery less and less important factor in the economy.

Yes, the British Navy destroyed the Slave Trade due to activist lefties in Parliament imposing aggressive military interventions on the international Slave Trade.

However, the Slave Power of the American South was not on the wane, indeed is was growing in economic power. King Cotton:

The Civil War was fought to preserve the "peculiar Institution". However, once the war started, the Brits began growing Cotton in Egypt and India, which kept their Textile Industry afloat (which caused famines a few years down the road):

Reality says

The reason why all population was growing rapidly in the west was due to trade and capitalistic free market economic take off making child mortality decline rapidly. The same as the 1960's population explosion in the third world when western technology was introduced to them.

Thank You, Tariff:

If the Tariff rate on Imports was over 30-40% today, von Mises and Rothbard would be wailing "Statist Oppression" - yet that's just where it was during their celebrated Laissez Faire Era.

Reality says

Mercantilism was not at all the father of capitalism. Georgii, you are showing the bad economics education you received in the former USSR.

Mercantilism was invented by a bunch of wannabe central planners trying to explain the British success of the earlier century. The Mercantilist policies implemented by them in the rest of Europe led directly to colonial land grab competition of the late 19th and early 20th century. Then the soviets and their communist satellites tried to implement their version of Mercantilism / ruthless colonial exploitation of their internal population. The results were invariably disasterous.

Oh, what was Adam Smith describing in the 18th Century when he spoke of past Economic History?

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it.

Why did the Tea Party happen?

Clearly, Mercantilism was already in play in the 18th Century (at least), which should be Common Knowledge for an Austrian whose favorite websites quotes Jefferson on State-sponsored Monopolies.

Reality says

I was not dodging your point at all. "British Empire" was not a homogeneous empire, or even a federal system where all members enjoy equal rights everywhere. It was a tholassocracy: each region was governed according to its own peculiarities. Some parts of it even had cannibals, like Northern Borneo.

My point is not that the British Raj is the South African Dominion. My point is that your symbol of Free Trade Britain being a paradise of Freedom is Flawed.

You try to have it both ways: Have the Industrial Power of the US explained by Laissez Faire, when in the first case it had what today would be considered crushingly high tariffs. While blaming the Oppression of Colonialism on Mercantilism of the late 19th Century, when at the same time the British Empire was at it's peak, it was eliminating Tariffs and embracing Free Trade.

British Tariffs declined as the Victorian Era of Maximum Colonialism advanced:

Let me get this straight, you are for raising tariffs and raising income tax . . . Why are you then against slavery since you are for partial slavery anyway? LOL

You may want to look up what is "dutiable." Many goods were not. Income tax was much lower back then, and there wasn't the payroll tax.

British navy was outlawing slave transportation on the high seas because the slave abduction trade carried out by the Africans and Arabs in Africa was financing powers hostile to British interests. The slave abduction trade was one of the primary sources of income that those native and "native" anti-British powers had.

In case you forgot, Adam Smith was rebutting what later would be theorized as "mercantilism founding capitalism." He was arguing against the conquest and control of natural resources for ruthless exploitstion. His idea of trade and division of labor (the source of the wealth of nations) was not exchange at the point of a musket. LOL. But free trade!

The Boston tea dumping incident was another case of Mercantilism didn't work. British attempt to impose tax and grant monopoly to cronies (trying to stamp out "pirates") led to a massive loss not gain. Nobody said British ran a paradise; just something more functional than the typical Russian central planned wasteland. Of course the Brits made many mistakes along the way, such as the tea dumping incident and causing the 13 colonies to secede.

What looks like crushing rates of tariff today may not be so bad back them in comparison to worse ways of government building "negative bridges" via tariffs and letting cronies monopolize trade. Just like 16 knots is unbearably slow today for shipping, but back then clippers making that speed was considered very fast.

The US industrialized despite the tariffs not because of the tariffs . . . Just like youngsters today are literate despite many public school monopolies not because of them.