So rather than "Government is responsible for cleaning up messes it created" you mean "government was responsible for cleaning up a mess that market forces created and were not able to clean up"?

Not for trying to stop it, but cleaning up the mess. We ****ed up Iraq, and I'm against that war, but once we did the damage, we are somewhat obligated to clean it up. Same thing with slavery. There is responsibility to clean up the mess, not really blame.

The "no exit clause" business is something that wasn't actually tested. Some people thought there was, some people didn't. If war could have been avoided and secession allowed, then certainly there would have been more negotiation on both sides.

And yes, the south wanting out for terrible reasons doesn't mean that wanting out by itself is bad. It just means they were a bunch of idiots. If you want to argue that secession by itself is bad, then if they wanted to secede for noble reasons, you still would be against that. And I disagree with that.

only the weak minded can be indoctrinated. never would happen to me

No, what I mean is there is some level of responsibility by the government, therefore their responsibility to clean things up. They contributed to, but did not create slavery. The market would have solved it much quicker without things like fugitive slave laws or protections for slave owners. That's not a market force unless you subscribe to the "everything, including government actions, are a market force" theory of markets.


I don't support social security, but I wouldn't support just throwing the program away and making seniors starve on the streets.

Oh, so the Constitution features the 3/5 Unanimous Agreement? Lots of people opposed slavery even from the start of the government. But rich business interests fighting tooth and nail to keep it around now makes it entirely the problem of the government?

It certainly featured agreement. I believe it was ratified. If you want to say that the ratification process is not legitimate, then go for it. I don't think it is legitimate, but I'm making the assumption that it is.

People just need to stop retroactively trying to apply their theories to history.

Take the Tom approach to CRA. Repealing it is really far down on the list of things that need to be corrected.

What about the civil war Huehuecoyotl ?

I think that it ultimately freed the slaves which was good. I think that someone who doesn't own people or trying to something terrible and just doesn't want to belong to X should be free to be able to leave the union though.

Or something along those lines.

It makes the point more sympathetic than messing around with all this Civil War crap.

Lolz...you have NO idea if this is true. The market could have very easily solved the problem of slaves running away without the fugitive slave law. In fact (since we worship markets) we can be sure market forces could have found a much, much better solution than the FSL if left to it's own devices...

I love how your side always talks about how markets solve problems and we can't even IN PRINCIPLE know exactly it's going to solve them....obv except when you need it to prop up a crazy argument LDO.

Austrian proctologists agree

Of course. The problem is that some influential libertarians defended things like the confederacy as a dog whistle to appeal to racists and people like tom got indoctrinated into defending some crazy viewpoints which even the originators of probably didn't really buy.

well yeah. I mean despite what fly would like you to believe, it's not like I go around telling everyone that the civil war was awful.

Of course, you might expect that in this forum we can have a more nuanced discussion of things like the difference between means and ends, but... apparently not.

What crazy viewpoints did I get "indoctrinated" about? That states should be able to secede? Are you assuming more based on lies that Fly posts?

Sure, it's possible, but it would have at least cut into its profitability and made it less economical. Slave owners got a massive free ride from people who didn't benefit from slavery paying for the costs of it. Would removing that removed it completely? Possibly, possibly not. But it certainly would have made them bear the costs for it more, which is a good thing. Obviously it would be better if they didn't enslave people. I have no moral qualms with killing slave owners who refused to free slaves, though.

So, uhh, why didn't the market solve the problem of slavery?

1) Freeriding benefits
2) Insufficient public beliefs to consider it immoral
3) Not enough time to allow the public outrage
4) Not enough time to make it less profitable

The market had TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY YEARS to stop slavery. I'm sure the market solution was just around the corner.

Also, the people most outraged w.r.t. slavery were the people who tried to secede to preserve it.

Again, the weird way that "the government" is treated as something distinct as separate from landed Southern interests is just amazing. Who the **** does he think wanted the fugitive slave law? The abolitionist North? Which didn't have slavery and also was very lax about enforcing that law?

Because abolitionists in the North didn't, for example, start a shooting war when the South wanted to pass federal fugitive slave laws that the North opposed... the South deserved compensation for their slaves.

That government created slavery in the US. That without government intervention slavery would have been eliminated sooner even though government intervention did actually remove it. That's just from today...I have no idea what you've said in the rest of the thread.

But you just conceded the point (again).

When you factor in the historical details of the southern US in the mid 1800s and beyond the notion that slavery would have gone away quicker without government intervention seems even more dubious. Things like segregation persisted even though it is obv not optimal in a market sense.

This was the 4th post in a thread asking Ron Paulites to explain a video interview of him talking about compensated emancipation.

So, uh, what the **** was the point of your first post?

But no state is going to want to leave for a universally agreed upon noble reason. Whatever the reason it's going to be controversial, and potentially lead to a war.

You can hold the view that slavery is bad and secession is legal.

You cannot easily defend the view that secession is legal but only in certain circumstances.

The market was interfered with by the government protecting slavery. So no, it did not have 240 years. If the government turned a blind eye to people who would go into the south and free slaves, then it ends quite quickly.

Also, why has the market not provided flying cars yet?!?

That perhaps the OP was implying a false dichotomy

Ah yes, there were merely ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THREE YEARS between the first slave in the colonies and the fugitive slave law. That's not NEARLY enough time for the market to come up with a solution.

But ELL OH ****ING ELL at comparing flying cars with finding a solution to slavery. That's some hilarious **** right there.

Literally the exact same **** happened in the last thread. pvn and Tom had no idea what was going on, but they saw some egghead Yankees making fun of Ron Paul for saying some awful and incorrect **** about the Civil War.

After a few abortive posts attempting to pretend what Ron Paul said wasn't awful or wrong, the whole connection to Ron Paul gets completely forgotten and we settle into "but Lincoln was bad too" interpersed with the occasional and truly hilarious "the Confederacy was just defending themselves".

The same **** every time. pvn, why can't you let people make fun of some **** Ron Paul said without chiming in about... well, something completely unrelated?

We all know why. Ain't no way you gonna let the glorious name of Dixie get slandered on the interwebs. Notice that it's always, always Lincoln you need to denigrate. Lincoln was the WOAT president for libertarians.

People who talk about the Revolutionary War never trigger a lecture from you about the way Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion and so was just as bad as the English.

What false dichotomy is being implied by the above?