About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Thursday, September 1, 2011 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Hey! Who came up with -this- nonsense?"

"Nobody--and by nobody, I mean everybody. It is a 'social construct.' Don't blame us. In fact don't blame anybody. You have to blame everybody."

"But I want no part of it."

"You must; it's a social construct."

"As far as I can tell, that just means it has Star Trek-like shields, that make it impervious to reason..or review. Who is powering the shields?"

"Everybody. It is a social construct."

"But, I'm not powering it."

"It's ok; we have extra."

"Who is we?"

"Society."

"I don't hear "S"ociety; I only hear a fellow naked sweaty ape lifting his leg and speaking for "S"ociety, just like every carny huckster in the past, all the way back to the Volcano God."

"Whatever works."

Post 61

Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I missed this reply from Brad Trun, who wrote:
William, I'm glad you are also a fan of Jefferson's ideas. He believed black slaves should be freed and then deported. Yes, deported. He wrote in 1821:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers."

Do you think the Declaration of Independence means open immigration for Ugandans? I don't derive that meaning from the text, and I'm quite certain that the author didn't intend you to do so.
Well, that's a very distressing and very odd thing to read from the author of the Declaration of Independence. So Jefferson didn't really mean it when he wrote that all men are created equal and are endowed with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Just what do you think these unalienable rights mean if they don't mean the right to freedom of choice, freedom of action and freedom of association?

You say that the racist statement you quoted was made by Jefferson in 1821, almost 50 years after he wrote the Declaration. Perhaps, he changed his mind and no longer believed in universal rights, or perhaps he was suffering from an age-related decline in judgment, since he died only five years later. What is clear, however, is that his statement contradicts what he wrote almost 50 years earlier in 1776. The rights which Jefferson enunciated in the Declaration would certainly have included the freedom of an innocent person not to be deported from the country in which he lives.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/14, 5:55pm)


Post 62

Monday, October 3, 2011 - 8:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re: Jefferson's 'Emancipation and deportation.'


I think you can and should apply the bias of the time that he wrote this; the assumption that many of the slaves were forcibly removed from their homes far away, and the presumption that upon emancipation so close to the period of their enslavement, many would have a preference to return home and leave the nation of their unjust ("the evil" )enslavement.

I don't think he recognized a high probability of much reconciliation in place after emancipation. His bias, formed of the time he was writing about (post Revolutionary America, late 1770s, as well as when he wrote his recollections -- 40-45 years later) is clearly that he believes that many/most would want to leave the nation of their enslavement.

The full context of that quote is from his Autobiography, written in 1821, when he was writing about events 40-45 years earlier. The exact entry was written on Feb 7, 1821, in a discussion of preparation of an iteration of the bills that would define the first US government. THe particular set of bills he is writing about were worked on between January 1777 and February 1779, and reported to the "General Assembly" in June 1779.

It is often attributed incorrectly to a letter he wrote to George Washington in January 1786; that is incorrect. The full text of that letter includes nothing like the quote below, which is from his Autobiography.

The bill on the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future & general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment whenever the bill should be brought on. The principles of the amendment however were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that
the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at
the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.

Thomas Jefferson, The Works, vol. 1 (Autobiography,
Anas, 1760-1770) [1905] Paul Leicester Ford.

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/800/Jefferson_0054-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 - 1:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think you are stretching to make a point, Fred. That quote clearly indicates that he doesn't think that the emancipated slaves should be allowed to remain in the country, because he doesn't think that blacks and whites can live together and get along. Deportation meant involuntary deportation. So much for the vaunted rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 - 2:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, you are technically correct, but you are ignoring the historical context and asking for a kind of absolute perfection and ideological purity that would not have been possible. Look at what Jefferson, Madison and other founding fathers did that was positive. Look at where their efforts took us. If we damn them for failing to be perfect in their grasp of individual rights and moral philosophy it is, to my mind our flaw, not theirs. I don't mean putting them on pedestals, or white-washing history, but damn the mistaken beliefs, the fallacies, the confusions, but not this group of people that rose so far above where the rest of the world stood at that time in history and did so much. There has never been such a band of heroes that risked so much, accomplished so much and saw things so clearly.

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 65

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William:

Well, yes, he did think that; In what time? In what historical context?

We disagree on how significant that was.

How -- and why -- did Britain suddenly -- very suddenly --shift gears from participating in the 'triangular' trade routes of the Atlantic to launching a world wide campaign to end slavery?

They lost the colonies. They lost their commercial interest in slavery. And they found a new found moral crusade to rid the world of slavery. They marched across the globe and occupied Africa (their former Muslim slave trading partners) and the Indian sub-continent.

As Rhodes later described in the last half of the 19th century when this crusade was fully in place, their renewed global redirected colonialism was Philanthropy...plus 5% marching behind the cover a world wide moral crusade.

And...the precursor to that world was the world Jefferson was living in.

The primary cause of the unequal treatment by the British of the Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent was the Muslims -embrace- of slavery and the Hindus abhorrence of slavery. The Muslims saw slavery as the accepted way of converting non-believers into Islam. They either converted, or remained slaves.

The modern myth is that white Europeans showed up in Africa , ran into the jungles and rounded up slaves.

Nonsense. White Europeans showed up in Africa and conducted trade with Muslim slave traders who were selling slaves. Slavery was -- is -- an accepted part of Islamic culture in parts of Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

Jefferson lived in an age of slavery as common commerce and his beliefs should be evaluated in that context.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Wednesday, October 5, 2011 - 8:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The point I was making is not only that Jefferson advocated the involuntary deportation of emancipated slaves, which is itself a violation of their rights, but that he advocated it in opposition to his very own theory of rights -- the one that he enunciated in The Declaration of Independence almost 50 years earlier. He wasn't a stupid man; he was quite capable of recognizing the contradiction, but he chose to ignore it. This is errant hypocrisy! No two ways about it.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Wednesday, October 5, 2011 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The one man who did more in the fight for realizing individual rights, the one man who was more of a father to American freedom, the one nation, who thanks to this man, was founded on the concept of individual rights... wasn't perfect when judged by modern standards, so what!

Bill, like I said, you are technically correct, but because you ignore the historical context, you damn Jefferson in a way that is unfair and more than distasteful. The majority of the people living the South at that time believed that blacks were an "inferior race" - not as the prejudice or bigotry it would be today, but as the 'scientific' belief prevalent in that day. And, remember that Jefferson was effective in ending international slave trade - outlawing it during his time as president (1804).

Like Fred wrote, "Jefferson lived in an age of slavery as common commerce and his beliefs should be evaluated in that context." How should this man be viewed by history - as a fierce, brilliant, innovative defender of individual rights who put his life and fortune on the line, or as a hypocrite?
-------------------

I get really sick of all of the bashing of the founding fathers. I'd like to see what these critics would have risked had they been born into those times.
----------------

Take a look at what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence. [unknown source on this data unless otherwise noted]

Thomas Jefferson served as the wartime Governor of Virginia (1779–1781), barely escaping capture by the British in 1781. The British seized Monticello, his home, along with another plantation which Jefferson owned on the James River. British troops destroyed all his crops, burnt his barns and fences, drove off the cattle, seized all usable horses, cut the throats of the colts, and after setting fires left the plantation a smoldering, blackened waste. Twenty-seven slaves were also captured to which Jefferson later replied.. "Had he carried off the slaves to give them freedom, he would have done right." [Wikipedia on Jefferson]

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly.

He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt .

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed.

The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Wednesday, October 5, 2011 - 7:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

First you say that I'm technically correct. Then you say that Jefferson was a brilliant, innovative defender of individual rights, despite the fact that he defended the involuntary deportation of African slaves. Then you say that I'm being unfair and distasteful.

Well, which is it?

Post 69

Wednesday, October 5, 2011 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I was clear. If you want to join those who want trash Jefferson, go ahead.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Thursday, October 6, 2011 - 5:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Americans were actually taught about the 'triangular trade routes' but didn't fully accept the implications of connecting the dots.

As one example including Britian from the early period of slavery in the America colonies:

In the leg from Africa to America, the ships were filled with slaves.

In the leg from America to Britian, the ships were filled with raw materials 'cash crops.'

In the leg from Britain to Africa, the ships were filled with what? For what purpose, if not trade?

(As slavery continued after the Revolution, that trade triangle evolved to New-England -> Africa -> Caribbean.)

The point being, that the history of slavery always included 'trade,' as in, commerce.

With who? And curiously, why is it that those suppliers -never- take a hit in this endless lookback at an institution that existed for thousands of years in the world -until- men just like Jefferson put forth their radical ideas in the context of their times at the bleeding edge of that thousands of years old evil tradition of mankind?

As well, until a mercenary British empire launched a new wave of colonial expansion under the moral flag of ending slavery in the world...by directly attacking the suppliers and colonizing their nations(as Rhodes 5% on top of philanthropy...)

The several thousand year old tradition of slavery was ended imperfectly by flawed men for selfish reasons.

Also known, at least here in America, as another day ending in 'y' here on earth.








Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Friday, October 14, 2011 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad you are a racist attempting to justify your position with statistics that completely ignore a man's right to be judged on the merits of his individual actions.
Black, hispanic, chinese etc who cares what race he or she may be we are all human!
We all have the inalienable right to be protected from the initiation of force, fraud, coercion and theft regardless of where in the world we are born or how much or how little melanin is in our skin.



Post 72

Friday, October 21, 2011 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jefferson was right. Freeing the slaves and repatriating/recolonizing them in Africa was the moral and practical solution. Instead, we fought a horrific war that forever entrenched statism into American life. Financing a mass deportation would have been far less violent and far less destructive of liberties and would have averted much of the racial crime and conflict of succeeding decades.

Some charities were set up for the purpose of repatriation, which were supported by both whites and blacks. It was an idea advocated by James Monroe and embraced by Lincoln before the war. But apparently only 15,000 or so freed slaves were repatriated, mainly to Liberia.

Those who continue to obsess over and exploit for ideological purposes the slavery of generations gone by won't even express even half as much concern over the fact that there are more slaves in the world right now, today, than there were during Jefferson's time.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 11:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I consider myself at least partially a slave.
If you think I pay 70000/year in income taxes willingly I would have to say hogwash. Until the economy is seperated from state control we to one degree or another are all slaves.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jules,

I feel your pain. Every time that I've had to write a large check to the IRS, I've been very aware of the portion of my life consumed to make that money.

Decades ago I took to the streets to protest the draft - I considered it to be "Selective Slavery" - that it was a form of temporary involuntary servitude.

There is no question that there is a degree of involuntary servitude associated with our tax code and the draft. But they still differ from slavery in important ways.

What you or I did in linking the horrors of a military draft or the horror of working for the government, in effect, till sometime in June to pay the tax burden, was to achieve the rhetorical effect of showing how much these government intrusions resembled slavery.

That rhetorical purpose can only be effective as long as pure slavery is understood to be what it is. There will be no paint on that brush if we don't keep a degree of understanding that pure slavery is to take away all of person's choice - not some of it, and not temporarily. A slave is totally owned: Where they go, what they do, whether they live or die, are all up to the unfettered whim of the person that owns them.

We use "slavery" to damn the effects of high taxation, and the horror of the military draft, but neither of them rise, in degree, to actual slavery.

Post 75

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 6:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I had a conversation recently with my niece about the original "3/5ths" apportionment of slaves. What was her impression of the intent of that?

And, it was as many of us have been taught; "how horrible that the FF regarded slaves as 3/5th of a human being."

Well, that is total nonsense. In the context of their times, if they -supported- the institution of slavery, then that fraction would have been closer to 1. Would that have been the more humanitarian number? Hardly.

Who was that "3/5th" directed at? The impact of that 3/5th was to weaken the influence of the southern states that supported slavery relative to 1:1. That 3/5th impacted the number of representatives that the southern states had in Congress, period.

The 3/5th compromise, if anything, was too high, not too low. It gave -too much- legislative power to the slaveholders.

And yet, that is not the understanding of folks like my niece, a modern product of public schooling, because that is not what she was taught. For her, that "3/5th of a human being" was some kind of sign of original sin in this nation--the nation that appeared at the bleeding far edge of a thousands of year old institution of slavery, most recently carried out as part of commerce with then Muslim nations.

Our true shame, in the context of those times, was that the 3/5th fraction wasn't even lower; Slaves did not benefit from more legislative power in the hands of slaveholders and the states that supported them.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We use "slavery" to damn the effects of high taxation, and the horror of the military draft, but neither of them rise, in degree, to actual slavery.
I understand what you're saying -- that chattel slavery is orders of magnitude greater than the kind of government intervention and control and that we experience today. Nevertheless, I think that calling military conscription "slavery" is accurate, even if it is of a lesser degree. It is, after all, a form of involuntary servitude, which is prohibited under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

It is the violation of the principle itself, not the degree of its violation, that is most important. Hitting someone in the jaw is not as bad as shooting him in the heart, but they are both forms of assault. What makes slavery of any severity or duration wrong is that it gives one person control over another person's life -- that it denies individual autonomy, for either you own your life or someone else does; there is no third alternative. If another person can justifiably dictate how you live your life, then he owns you. You are his slave, no matter how minimal or benevolent the control happens to be. It is a usurpation of your right to choose your own actions.

It is the failure of people to think in fundamental principles that is destroying the world. The fundamental issue today is: self-determination or dictatorship -- libertarianism or authoritarianism -- freedom or slavery. It's one or the other. No compromise is possible between these two principles of social organization.


Post 77

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 5:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William:

"If another person can justifiably dictate how you live your life, then he owns you."


Well said. And its corollary: if other persons long dead can dictate how you describe living your life, such that it must always be described in terms of "S"ociety and social organization and social construct and social context, etc., then other persons do not even have to break a sweat to own you, because they already do.

The defunct Soviets, objectively real global totalitarian leaning adversaries to that concept of freedom you describe, deliberately and with intent attacked the academic, intellectual and cultural underpinnings of freedom in this nation. They were able to do that precisely because of our freedom, our open borders, our non-police state, and our wide open universities.

They infected our language. They infected our thought. They kicked out the intellectual legs from underneath freedom by focusing at first on a tiny handful of choke points -- the Ivies -- in the pre and post WWII era, even before you and I were born, but since as well, for as long as they were in the conflict.

They succeeded in turning what used to be an overt external struggle for freedom -- a struggle that once united this nation -- into an internal struggle that currently divides this nation as much as the Civil War once divided this nation, just short of widespread violence, but not far.

America might have 'won' the Cold War, but in the process of being attacked, we also caught the Cold. It has been lingering and festering for decades. There may no longer be an effective Soviet global adversary to freedom, but like a corpse infected with The Plague, those dead ideas have also infected... er....We The Living.

We have been so inculcated, instructed, and trained from birth to be fully 'socialized'/Tribe Aligned that we can't even see it. "Socialized" goes well beyond 'plays well with others-- that is just the harmless sheep's clothing, and if it ended there, no harm. But "S"ocialized includes every screwed up lesson dragged home from public school, complete with rewrites of history, curiously phrased word problems from math class, and CF group project 'training.' Front and center in this religious based training is the daily, incessant insertion of the singular idea "S"ociety along with its economic side car, "The Economy." The intellectual foundation of those two singular concepts precisely defines Totalitarianism, and that intellectual foundation is hammered into every one of us from the moment we show up for pre-school. Not just our generation, but for generations which have preceded us.

A once free people are severely mistaken if they think they can glibly accept those singular concepts as the foundation for every political argument, because as soon as they do, totalitarianism has won and they are owned by The Tribe. Those long defunct Soviet adversaries fully understood that, and also understood that we never likely would.

regards,
Fred



Post 78

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

Exactly! We are awash in collectivism, psychologically as well as intellectually and politically. We can no longer think outside the context of groups and social organizations. The concept of the individual as a singular, autonomous entity with individual rights is no longer part of the political discourse (as Ron Paul pointed out in the recent Republican debates). We are quick to ascribe sovereignty to governments, nations and states, but the idea that such a concept applies to individuals never crosses our minds, even though a collective is simply a number of individuals.

We've lost the ability to think in terms of fundamentals.

Post 79

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 10/26, 12:51pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.