RoR: Forum

I said: "If you and I enter into a contract, and later on you have second thoughts about the morality of that contract and seek to unilaterally change the terms of that contract to remove the clause you feel is immoral, do you have the right to pull a gun and force me to accept these revised terms?"

To which John said: "I mean really, are you serious? Or are you just pulling my leg? Do you have a right to enter into a contract that permits slavery? Unreal. Did the slaves get a say in that contract Jim? Yes, you do have a right to pull out a gun and stop someone from committing a crime against humanity. You betcha."

John, reread that first paragraph. Is the word "slavery" in it anywhere? I am asking about your views on the general right to unilaterally abrogate contracts we've both freely entered into that, at the time the contracts were executed were considered legally valid, so as to lay the groundwork to discuss whether or not states currently have the right to secede, and if so, under which situations. I am trying to establish that entering into the Union is a contract. And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Civil War was primarily over the right to secede, and only secondarily about slavery, as Lincoln himself said in unambiguous terms in the quote I gave in an earlier post.

My contention is that each state joining the Union has entered into a voluntary contract with the federal government to receive certain services, and that the contract does not forbid voluntarily ending that association if a given state concludes that it is an unsatisfactory deal for its citizens. You seem to be arguing that states currently do not have that right to secede at all. Please either point out the specific wording in the contract -- the Constitution -- saying that, or else make your case that the Constitution is not a contract at all between the states and the federal government.

Post 21

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 12:18pm

Jim,

In post 19, you said, "This most disconcerting thing to me about Objectivism, as least as it is practiced on this site, is the dismaying militarism and willingness to engage in preemptive force."

Objectivism can never be practiced, on any site, where the practice involves initiation of force that is certain to result in the loss of innocent life unless self-defense is not an over-riding demand.

Anyone who disagrees, isn't advocating Objectivism no matter what they might think or what they might call themselves.

There are only a few individuals that make those claims and then twist logic into tortured shapes to try to make it fit Objectivism, but it's just can't be done.

Please use your words more carefully, since it smears Objectivism with their irrationality when you don't.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/09, 12:37pm)

Post 22

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 2:33pm

Jim:

John said: "But the context here was the North and South as separate nations would've begun competing with each other for admitting new territories as states into their respective nations, which would have lead to an armed conflict at some time in the future anyways had Lincoln not waged the conflict at the time that he did."

I'm not buying at all this notion of inevitability. Even a cursory understanding of history would dispel this notion.

Yet, you don't bother telling me what this cursory knowledge that dispels this notion is.

You don't believe me the North and South would have been competing for states and that the reason the South seceded was because of slavery, and not just to secede for the hell of it? The fact is the two political factions, the Northern free states, and the Southern slave states, ever since the Louisiana Purchase were competing for territories to be admitted as a free or slave state. (Look up Missouri Compromise)

the political pressure on the South over the slave issue had built up over decades. (Read time line below)

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/precivilwar/timeline.html

1792: Denmark Abolishes Slavery Denmark becomes the first European nation to abolish the slave trade.
1793: Original Fugitive Slave law The first fugitive slave law is passed; puts the burden of proof on the fugitive. Most Northern states pass laws that repeal this law and are allowed to do so by the central government.
1790s: Northern States Abolish Slavery All the Northern states gradually emancipate their slaves. The last three to do so are New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Summer 1800: Gabriel Prosser's Rebellion A young slave blacksmith named Gabriel Prosser conspires an unsuccessful slave revolt of about 1,000 slaves in Richmond, Virginia. Whites are alerted before his force can strike.
1803: Louisiana Purchase Napoleon Bonaparte arranges for the sale of the Louisiana Territory to the United States.
1803-4: Haitian Revolution Inspired in part by the French Revolution and led by the brilliant Toussaint L'Ouverture, massive numbers of slaves revolt on the French colony of St. Domingue. The successful revolution leads to the end of French rule and the establishment of the first black nation in the Western Hemisphere, Haiti.
1808: Slave Trade Abolished Britain and the United States abolish the international slave trade.
1812-1815: War of 1812 Final imperial struggle between the United States and Britain leaves the United States with undisputed control over the country.
1820: Missouri Compromise The Missouri Compromise admits Missouri as a slave state and divides the country between slavery and freedom at the 36'30 line.
1820: Condemnation of the Slave Trade Congress declares that the international slave trade is "piracy" and moves to end the illegal trade of Africans.
June 1822: Denmark Vesey's Rebellion A free black carpenter leads a conspiracy to create mass insurrection among the slaves of Charleston, South Carolina. They are caught before the revolt can take place; 35 are hanged.
January 1, 1831: First issue of The Liberator William Lloyd Garrison publishes the first issue of his fiery abolitionist journal in Boston.
August 1831: Nat Turner's Rebellion Perhaps the bloodiest slave rebellion in United States history; a preacher named Nat Turner leads about 40 slaves to kill over 20 whites in southeastern Virginia. They are caught and hanged.
1831: David Walker's Appeal A free black named David Walker publishes his "appeal" to other free blacks to demand equality and immediate freedom for other African-Americans, by force if necessary. He is later found mysteriously dead.
1833: British Slavery Abolished British slavery is abolished, with payment given to slave owners and an apprenticeship period for slaves.
1833-36: Nullification Crisis Furious over Northern tariffs, South Carolina's John Calhoun makes the first threat of state secession in Congress.
December 1835: Gag Rule In an effort to keep Congress from becoming "ungentlemanly," James Hammond of South Carolina introduces a gag rule that restricts discussion and introduction of topics pertaining to slavery.
1838: Frederick Douglass makes his mark Frederick Douglass escapes from Maryland. He will go on to become a leading spokesman for the abolitionist movement and publish several autobiographies.
1839: Amistad The Spanish slave ship Amistad is seized by its cargo, the revolting slaves. The ship winds up in the Northeastern United States and is the subject of a famous court decision that ends with the return of the slaves to Africa.
1839: Gradual Emancipation John Quincy Adams introduces Constitutional amendments for gradual emancipation of slaves. They are rejected.
May 1846-1848: Mexican-American War The United States battles Mexico for control of the Southwest territory.
August 8, 1846: Wilmot Proviso Congressional proviso launched by Northern Democrats to forbid slavery in any territory acquired by Mexico. Marked a serious split between Northern and Southern Democrats on the matter of slavery.
1846: Holland abolishes slavery Holland abolishes slavery in all of her colonies.
1850: Compromise of 1850 Compromise allows California to be admitted as a free state (temporarily upsetting the balance between slave and free states in the Union) in exchange for the Fugitive Slave Law, allowing for the extradition of fugitive slaves from the North to the South. Also allowed for popular sovereignty in new territories.
1850-1856: Northern Personal Liberty Laws Many Northern states enact personal liberty laws that repeal the Fugitive Slave Law. The most famous law was in Pennsylvania.
1852: Uncle Tom's Cabin Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes her controversial best-seller that emphatically calls for emancipation. The book is heralded in the North and denounced by the South.
January 30, 1854: Kansas-Nebraska Act This act repeals the Missouri Compromise by opening up the territory above the 36'30 line to popular sovereignty on the matter of slavery. The first territory to be subject was Kansas, which soon erupted in a prolonged struggle between proslavery and antislavery settlers and squatters over the status of Kansas.
February 2, 1854: Anthony Burns demonstration In direct response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which infuriated Northerners, Boston erupts in demonstrations when a U.S. Marshal comes to arrest Anthony Burns, a runaway slave.
May 24, 1856: Potawatomie Massacre John Brown and his sons kill five proslavery squatters in Kansas.
1856: Sumner beaten The antislavery Senator Charles Sumner is severely beaten in the Senate by Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina.
1857: Dred Scott Decision In this famous Supreme Court decision, the courts say that black people cannot be citizens (free or not) and that slaves brought into free territory by their owners remain property.
1858: Lecompton Constitution The Lecompton Constitution, which would have admitted Kansas (nominally) as a slave state, is submitted. Kansas is finally admitted as a free state.
October 16, 1859: John Brown's Attack on Harper's Ferry With 19 assistants, John Brown surprises and captures the arsenal at Harper's Ferry. Two days later he is captured by Robert E. Lee and U.S. troops. He is hanged on December 2.
1860: Last holdouts of slavery By 1860, the only systems of slavery in the New World were in the United States, Cuba, and Brazil.
1860: Election of Abraham Lincoln Over the complete opposition of the slaveholding states, Lincoln is elected president. Read the SparkNote on Abraham Lincoln.

It was obvious the South felt it inevitable that the North was going to move to abolish slavery, and in an effort to avert that, they seceded for sole, primary reason of continuing the barbarous act of owning slaves.

Please Jim, enough with the history revisionism.

Post 23

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 2:49pm

Jim:

John said: "The question of invading Russia or China is not one of justification, it's one of stupidity."

So, first you argue that we should preemptively invade a country based on morality...

Jim, just stop right there. I didn't say should I said would be justified as a moral choice.

Let's put it this way. Should you be a police officer based on morality? As in, is it a necessary condition of morality that you become a police officer? Or is it a matter of sufficient condition, that it would be good for someone to be a police officer and catch criminals, but you personally are not obliged to be a police officer? Would it be immoral if someone else, not you, became a police officer and captured criminals?

But, you ducked the rest of the globe: Do you believe we should invade non-nuclear countries with relatively weak militaries who practice evil policies: Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Rwanda during the genocide, much of the rest of Africa, South Africa when it was actively practicing apartheid, Venezuela under Chavez, Myanmar, and on and on?

I never ducked the question and you've asked this question to me a dozen times over several different threads and I've always answered it. I'm thinking either you don't like the answer I give you or you just don't understand the answer. I'll try one more time and that's about as much patience as I have. Would it be immoral to destroy a foreign despotic regime? No it would not. It never is. Is it an obligation to destroy a despotic regime? No it is not. See the police officer example. It's not a necessary condition of morality that we must get rid of a foreign dictatorial regime, only that it wouldn't be immoral to do so. It only becomes a moral obligation when it is in our self interests to get rid of a foreign despotic regime. And since all despotic regimes are not alike, we would have to see whether those despotic regimes you list are a threat to our interests, and that we have the resources to commit to a war, and the benefits would outweigh the costs.

You want a simplistic answer to an otherwise complex question of whether we should we attack a dictator or not without any other relevant conditions necessary to answer that question. There are many variables to consider and to dismiss that recognition is intellectually dishonest.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/09, 3:03pm)

Post 24

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 3:01pm

Jim:

I said: "If you and I enter into a contract, and later on you have second thoughts about the morality of that contract and seek to unilaterally change the terms of that contract to remove the clause you feel is immoral, do you have the right to pull a gun and force me to accept these revised terms?"

To which John said: "I mean really, are you serious? Or are you just pulling my leg? Do you have a right to enter into a contract that permits slavery? Unreal. Did the slaves get a say in that contract Jim? Yes, you do have a right to pull out a gun and stop someone from committing a crime against humanity. You betcha."

John, reread that first paragraph. Is the word "slavery" in it anywhere? I am asking about your views on the general right to unilaterally abrogate contracts we've both freely entered into that, at the time the contracts were executed were considered legally valid, so as to lay the groundwork to discuss whether or not states currently have the right to secede, and if so, under which situations. I am trying to establish that entering into the Union is a contract.

Jim, it's quite simple, a condition in a contract that abrogates the rights of a whole group of individuals is an immoral condition to that contract. So no one has a right to make such a condition. So it would be moral to break it. I can't make that anymore clearer than that.

My contention is that each state joining the Union has entered into a voluntary contract with the federal government to receive certain services..

And my contention is that part of that contract that included the condition "we get to keep slaves" was never, never, never a moral condition to that contract.

I will say it again.

You never, ever have a right to enter into a contract for the purpose of owning slaves. Having a pre-existing contract with that condition doesn't make it anymore right, and how long that contract existed doesn't make that immorality go away. The fact is you want to argue that morality is based on traditionalism, based on precedent, because your argument that a pre-existing Constitution with a contract to the states allowing the admission of them as slave states is an argument in favor of traditionalism as a guide for morality, rather than reason.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/09, 3:09pm)

Post 25

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 3:01pm

Jim, you buy into certain revisionist ideas that I believe are mistaken.

�Whereas the Confederacy wanted to be left alone to practice their pernicious, evil policy, which would have certainly collapsed of its own accord in time.�

They didn�t just want to be left alone to practice slavery in the states where it was then legal. They wanted to expand the institution westward and secure it in perpetuity.

In the decades leading up to secession the struggle in Washington, the tension between north and south, was over whether slavery would be expanded into the western territories or contained to those southern states where it was then legal. The offer on the table was that the south could continue the institution, but there would be no new slave states admitted to the Union. This wasn�t good enough for the south. They decided to secede upon Lincoln�s election. Was their dear institution outlawed? No. Did big bad Lincoln invade to abolish slavery? No. Would he ever have, or would the north ever go along with him to invade? No, and no. Your Lincoln quotes make clear there was no threat of invasion prior to secession. So why did they secede? Because his election meant that they had definitively lost the struggle over expansion vs. containment. Clearly, they wanted more than to be left alone to practice their evil institution where and only where it was then legal. And why did they fight so hard to ensure that new Union entrants were slave instead of free states? Because they wanted to ensure getting two more slave-supporting senators with each new entrant. Doesn�t sound like they shared your view that slavery was going to wither away naturally.

Jim, you write: �And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the Civil War was primarily over the right to secede, and only secondarily about slavery, as Lincoln himself said in unambiguous terms in the quote I gave in an earlier post.�

The war was all about slavery. Decades of tension between north and south had been about slavery. Secession was about someone not getting his way on the question of the future of�you guessed it�slavery. This notion that it was really about something else is a big turd. It was ALL ABOUT slavery.

The Lincoln quote is being misused. What it means is that the south screwed up royally by not taking the deal they could have had: slavery contained to the southern states where it was then legal, but no expansion. They could have had that, and perhaps the institution would have withered on its own in a few decades. But that wasn�t enough for them.

Once they seceded, yes, it becomes an issue of preserving the Union, beating them up and forcing them back. Therefore the war was all about secession vs. union? NO! It was always all about what brought secession: the disagreement about the future of slavery. So when you say that the war was all about secession you are really saying it was all about slavery as that was what secession was all about.

The Lincoln quote makes clear that the south should have taken the deal; there was never any threat of the north invading to end the south�s dear institution. The south screwed itself when it changed the game by seceding.

Post 26

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 4:17pm

John said:

"I realize a lot of anarchists like to put their spin on history. But the context here was the North and South as separate nations would've begun competing with each other for admitting new territories as states into their respective nations, which would have lead to an armed conflict at some time in the future anyways had Lincoln not waged the conflict at the time that he did."

That's a good point I don't recall hearing before.

"And Lincoln's stated reasons for the war are inconsequential to a moral analysis of this war and the South's actions."

Just as with Bush's stated reasons for toppling saddam.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/10, 11:13am)

Post 27

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 6:57pm

Ted I agree 100% with you on the Bush reference. Although I also think his stated reasons were legitimate as well.

Jon L I also agree with your analysis too.

One other thing to address to Jim:

This most disconcerting thing to me about Objectivism, as least as it is practiced on this site, is the dismaying militarism and willingness to engage in preemptive force

What if I told you that what I found disconcerting, was a police officer arresting a mugger which the mugger never violated the rights of that police officer, yet the police officer pre-emptively arrested the mugger. Would you find that pre-emptive arrest disconcerting? I mean the mugger did nothing to the police officer, so why is it moral for the police officer to arrest the mugger and a judge, who wasn't mugged either, to punish him? In fact it's actually the same moral argument for toppling a despotic regime. In this comparison, the despotic regime is the criminal, the one who has morally transgressed against innocent people. So it shouldn't actually be disconcerting if you value life.

Now the question is, should the United States be this police officer? And I'm arguing that it doesn't have a moral obligation to be one, but when it acts as one, it is not immoral for it to assume that role if no other nation is willing. The world is a much better and wealthier place because of it. And since the rest of the world is unwillingly to confront the most dangerous regimes to freedom and peace, what is the alternative?

Post 28

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:23am

Keer: A state cannot arbitrarily remove its citizens from Federal citizenship.

Me: Well I would have to agree only because both federal and state governments are an agency of the citizens and not themselves (although their agents seem to act like they are only for themselves...), thus it does follow that any given state must submit any decision such as secession to the citizenry. Otherwise, any such decision is a usurping of the moral rights of those citizens to self-determination.

But what if the citizens decide to go along with secession? Does the self-determination of the many still outweigh the self-determination of the few?
(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 8/13, 10:24am)

Post 29

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:14pm

The only state which could legally succeed is Texas, which had that qualification written in as condition of joining.....

Post 30

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:49pm

They could legally succeed? Well, they could always try to succeed. Though, it�s one thing to secede and quite another to be successious at seceding.

Post 31

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 1:33pm

John said: "What if I told you that what I found disconcerting, was a police officer arresting a mugger which the mugger never violated the rights of that police officer, yet the police officer pre-emptively arrested the mugger. Would you find that pre-emptive arrest disconcerting?"

That's NOT pre-emption.

If the police officer arrested a person because they thought that person might, in the future, commit a crime, the case would be thrown out and the police dept. subject to a civil suit for violating the civil rights of the person.

If the police officer arrested a person based on evidence that gave them probable cause to believe that person had already committed a mugging, then that wouldn't be pre-emption either.

"I mean the mugger did nothing to the police officer, so why is it moral for the police officer to arrest the mugger and a judge, who wasn't mugged either, to punish him?"

The police officer would have been acting in his lawfully appointed capacity, sanctioned by the government ruling that area, as an employee of the taxpayers, defending the interests of those taxpayers.

"In fact it's actually the same moral argument for toppling a despotic regime. In this comparison, the despotic regime is the criminal, the one who has morally transgressed against innocent people."

That's an invalid analogy on several levels. Let's take a specific example -- Iraq. The U.S. was not acting in a lawfully appointed capacity by a superior governing body, since there is no superior governing body to the U.S. federal government. Even if you incorrectly think that the U.N.'s authority trumped that of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. did not explicitly direct the U.S. to invade Iraq, and in fact the invasion occurred despite great opposition from the U.N., which was looking for the WMDs that no longer existed. No one hired us to invade Iraq. We were not anyone's employee. And if you polled most of the governments in the world, they would vehemently deny that we were acting in their best interests in this situation.

"Now the question is, should the United States be this police officer?"

As we've already established, the only international body with even the most tenous claims to superior governance has not charged us with this responsibility, and in fact would actively oppose us if we formally requested such a role, and would not pay us to do so.

"And I'm arguing that it doesn't have a moral obligation to be one, but when it acts as one, it is not immoral for it to assume that role if no other nation is willing."

You're arguing here for a foreign policy based on altruism, with us making sacrifices allegedly for the benefit of others, who are unwilling to pay us for those sacrifices and thus make it a non-altruistic trade.

"The world is a much better and wealthier place because of it."

Arguably not so. The resources sunk into the Iraq war, if invested toward production, would make the world wealthier. And, by invoking the "world" instead of "the U.S.", you're arguing from altruism. The relevant question from an Objectivist standpoint is whether the U.S. is better off, not the world, compared to American citizens productively investing that half-trillion and counting that was instead sunk into the Iraq war.

"And since the rest of the world is unwillingly to confront the most dangerous regimes to freedom and peace, what is the alternative?"

Not acting altruistically? A realistic foreign policy based on maximizing the interests of the U.S. by sticking to national defense, not speculative wars based on faulty intelligence?

Post 32

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 2:25pm

Jim:

John said: "What if I told you that what I found disconcerting, was a police officer arresting a mugger which the mugger never violated the rights of that police officer, yet the police officer pre-emptively arrested the mugger. Would you find that pre-emptive arrest disconcerting?"

That's NOT pre-emption.

If the police officer arrested a person because they thought that person might, in the future, commit a crime, the case would be thrown out and the police dept. subject to a civil suit for violating the civil rights of the person.

You twisted the analogy to the criminal not being one. I am saying that why is it not pre-emption for a police officer to arrest a criminal and a court system to punish a criminal even though that criminal never morally transgressed against you, just someone else you don't know, but then it becomes pre-emption when free democratic nations seek to topple a totalitarian dictatorial government that has initiated force against one of those democratic nations or its own citizens?

What's the moral difference?

It goes to the broader question, when is it moral for someone to step in and stop someone from initiating force? Only if they are the ones experiencing the moral transgression? Is there a harmony of interests between men that allows for one man to step in and help another in retaliatory force?

"In fact it's actually the same moral argument for toppling a despotic regime. In this comparison, the despotic regime is the criminal, the one who has morally transgressed against innocent people."

That's an invalid analogy on several levels. Let's take a specific example -- Iraq. The U.S. was not acting in a lawfully appointed capacity by a superior governing body..

There is no superior governing body between nations. By that argument, then no wars are just, none, because no one has the legal authority to take force since no legal authority exists. You don't need a legal infrastructure (although there is a quasi-one internationally, and the U.N. authorized serious consequences for Iraq, but that's inconsequential to the moral argument I'm making) to act in your own self-interests. In the absence of a legal frame-work, you can still act morally.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/13, 3:53pm)

Post 33

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 8:37am

May I echo the thought above regarding pre-emptive force. A slavery "contract" is not one which is entered into willingly - the slave owner is the aggressor and hence there is a moral imperative to react. Here's what Ayn Rand had to say regarding pre-emptive force and this requirement. It still strikes me as being completely logical:

QUOTE: "The necessary consequence of man�s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.
If some �pacifist� society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it."

from "The Nature of Government", The Virtue of Selfishness

Post 34

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 9:06pm

Referring to the original subject of this thread - worst influence on what? The world? America? Me? Guessing that it's America, I generally agree with Jim Henshaw that Lincoln may be the worst, with the turn towards centralization of power in the Federal government, but Lincoln is not on the list.
Considering only those listed, I think it's a toss-up between Wilson and FDR.
Wilson brought us the Federal Reserve, income tax, first federal drug law and our contribution to the First World War. What a guy.
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal included new agencies such as the SEC, FDIC and of course, Social Security. And he imprisoned 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent, just in case.

Post 35

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 9:34pm

The world Randy? Oh, come now!

:)

Post 36

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 12:28pm

I find it interesting that after 35 votes, Nixon and Bush the father are the only two that remain unstigmatized. Nixon! Is that because Nixon really wasn't so bad after all, or because Objectivists are softies, or partisans?

I was tempted to rerun this poll without FDR as a choice. He is so obvious - and I think Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson paved the way for him. (I voted Teddy.) I do think FDR was absolutely horrible, but I couldn't say that his evil precedents so much outweighed those of his predecessors. There is absolutely no historical precedent for anyone remaining as liberal as Lincoln during a civil war. I reject him as a choice out of hand. I, obviously, voted for Teddy. I'd like to know who the FDR voters would have had as their second choice.

Post 37

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 12:45pm

George W. Bush would have been my second choice.

Regards;
--
Jeff

Post 38

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 4:29pm

I'd like to see the poll question rewritten in this form:

Which President had the most influence in "advancing" public opinion toward the notion that reason and freedom (read: capitalism) have had their chance and failed -- and that it's time to go back to faith and force in order to get good things done?

I would vote for GWB under that kind of a re-wording. I think Rand would, too.

Ed

Post 39

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 5:02pm