[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2014, 07:31 PM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Most of the world, and even some states in the US, ended slavery the libertarian way--through non-violent negotiations. They bought the slaves' freedom. But the cost to buy the slaves in the south was around $5b, so Lincoln decided instead to start a war that cost MORE than that, cost a million lives, destroyed the south's infrastructure and economy, leaving them a destitute pile of rubble so that, as always happens in that condition, they become religious fanatics filled with hate so that 100 years later blacks still couldn't even drink from the same fountain as whites, and whites could lynch them with no repercussions. Name one place in the US or the world that ended slavery the libertarian way that had segregation. Government force didn't free the slaves, rather it created a backwards, hate filled, impoverished part of the country.

Oh, man, I just saw this.

I'm not sure why you don't know any history, but, protip: the South started the war.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
15-05-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
Epic fail. You just put 'no' without any citation. That doesn't count.

Me: by 1930, the private sector built a network with 2500 different light rail (metro) systems so every town...

Your rebuttal: NO

Facts: In the link you yourself provided it says the US had "1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways." Other sources said the number was 2500. Fine, take your number of 1200. This doesn't change my point; the private sector built a comprehensive metro system that, according to your own source, "early every city in the U.S. with a population over 10,000 had at least one streetcar company; nearly all were privately owned and were later dismantled".

See how I do the work for you and rebut my own claims on your behalf with direct quotes? The reason why I do that is because even the quotes you use as a rebuttal STILL back up my point. The reason why you just write "no" without any quotes is to not look silly for dispute details when the underlying fact and point are uncontroversial.

Me: travelling over 100mph

You: [NO]

Again, no citations. I'll help you out. The Pioneer Zephyr had a top speed of 112 mph. My claim stands. Your rebuttal has no merit.

ME: were building vac-tube (hyperloop) models to allow hyper-sonic transport

YOU: Full size systems were likely beyond the capabilities of the technology of the time

Again, no citations. Sure, the system presented lots of technological challenges. But that was 1910 for fucksake. Look at how the telephone, the car, the computer have advanced since then--heck look at how they've advanced just in the past decade. You seriously think that if they remained vigilant working at it they wouldn't have gotten it to work on a full size system? The fact is that taking risks like that can ONLY happen if the sector is completely private because, as you pointed out, there are lots of risks and the chance of failure is extremely high, so there HAS to be a huge payout. The inventors knew there was a 90% chance they'd fail, BUT, if they succeeded, they'd be the next Rockefellers. And that's the way the free market works. Once government stepped in and started building transportation systems, no private system could compete anymore. Could you build a business that competed with a government entity that used force to make everybody buy its product, even if they liked your product better? And, if you were a government employee, would you stick your next and risk building the vac-tube system, knowing that there was a 90% chance it would fail and taxpayers would be at your door with pitchforks demanding your resignation for squandering their money, and if it succeeded, all you'd get is a plaque from the governor? That's why, by every measurable metric, the innovation in public transit grew at breakneck speed while it was private, and since it became a government task, has been at a standstill, declining even.

ME: Since the government took over

YOU: [NO - "the government" didn't take over]

Fact: Even your own source conceded the government "significantly interfered" and passed laws making it illegal for the existing light rail companies to continue operating, forcing them to liquidate. And now we have one state-owned passenger system (Amtrak). This isn't disputed. You're just arguing semantics claiming this wasn't a "take over". Call it what you want. The facts are the facts.


Quote: The oil industry got Congress to confiscate and destroy all the mass transit systems [NO - "the government" didn't do that][/b] and force everyone to buy gas-burning cars [NO - no one was forced to build cars].

Again, silly semantics. The mass transit system was undeniably dismantled and destroyed. And the 1935 law was unquestionably a major factor. But you're so blindly devoted to your beloved government you'll insist it didn't do it. As far as being forced to buy cars, YES, the public transit system was taken away and people were forced with threat of prison to pay for the roadways for automobiles, whether they wanted to use them or not. So of course that means people were effectively forced to switch to automobiles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 08:32 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 07:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, man, I just saw this.

I'm not sure why you don't know any history, but, protip: the South started the [civil] war.

Jeez, you feel you have the right to completely rewrite history like that? The SOUTH started it???? What was the first battle where shots were fired? Fort sumter, in the south. Who attacked? The north. So the south started it??? They somehow forced the north to invade them and start shooting at them? How did the south do this?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that by trying to leave,
the north had to attack to prevent their exit, right? So if you come to my home, and then when you try to leave I shoot you to prevent your exit, will the jury buy that I had no choice because you started it?! Wow, what a stretch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 08:36 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 08:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 07:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, man, I just saw this.

I'm not sure why you don't know any history, but, protip: the South started the [civil] war.

Jeez, you feel you have the right to completely rewrite history like that? The SOUTH started it???? What was the first battle where shots were fired? Fort sumter, in the south. Who attacked? The north. So the south started it??? They somehow forced the north to invade them and start shooting at them? How did the south do this?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that by trying to leave,
the north had to attack to prevent their exit, right? So if you come to my home, and then when you try to leave I shoot you to prevent your exit, will the jury buy that I had no choice because you started it?! Wow, what a stretch.

You really are retarded. Fort Sumpter was a Union base that was attacked by the southern city of Charleston. Moron it was in the link you used.

Quote:The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused one Union death.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 08:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Epic fail. You just put 'no' without any citation. That doesn't count.

Me: by 1930, the private sector built a network with 2500 different light rail (metro) systems so every town...

Your rebuttal: NO

I'm not debating you on this on this, just pointing out an obvious falsehood. Every town? Seriously?

Quote:Facts: In the link you yourself provided it says the US had "1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways." Other sources said the number was 2500. Fine, take your number of 1200. This doesn't change my point; the private sector built a comprehensive metro system that, according to your own source, "early every city in the U.S. with a population over 10,000 had at least one streetcar company; nearly all were privately owned and were later dismantled".

See how I do the work for you and rebut my own claims on your behalf with direct quotes? The reason why I do that is because even the quotes you use as a rebuttal STILL back up my point. The reason why you just write "no" without any quotes is to not look silly for dispute details when the underlying fact and point are uncontroversial.

Me: travelling over 100mph

You: [NO]

Again, no citations. I'll help you out. The Pioneer Zephyr had a top speed of 112 mph. My claim stands. Your rebuttal has no merit.

You really are a disingenuous cunt. The Pioneer Zephyr was a diesel-powered railroad train - not an electric tram as you seem to think. And if you knew that, you are a lying cunt.

Quote:ME: were building vac-tube (hyperloop) models to allow hyper-sonic transport

YOU: Full size systems were likely beyond the capabilities of the technology of the time

Again, no citations. Sure, the system presented lots of technological challenges. But that was 1910 for fucksake. Look at how the telephone, the car, the computer have advanced since then--heck look at how they've advanced just in the past decade. You seriously think that if they remained vigilant working at it they wouldn't have gotten it to work on a full size system? The fact is that taking risks like that can ONLY happen if the sector is completely private because, as you pointed out, there are lots of risks and the chance of failure is extremely high, so there HAS to be a huge payout. The inventors knew there was a 90% chance they'd fail, BUT, if they succeeded, they'd be the next Rockefellers. And that's the way the free market works. Once government stepped in and started building transportation systems, no private system could compete anymore. Could you build a business that competed with a government entity that used force to make everybody buy its product, even if they liked your product better? And, if you were a government employee, would you stick your next and risk building the vac-tube system, knowing that there was a 90% chance it would fail and taxpayers would be at your door with pitchforks demanding your resignation for squandering their money, and if it succeeded, all you'd get is a plaque from the governor? That's why, by every measurable metric, the innovation in public transit grew at breakneck speed while it was private, and since it became a government task, has been at a standstill, declining even.

ME: Since the government took over

YOU: [NO - "the government" didn't take over]

Fact: Even your own source conceded the government "significantly interfered" and passed laws making it illegal for the existing light rail companies to continue operating, forcing them to liquidate. And now we have one state-owned passenger system (Amtrak). This isn't disputed. You're just arguing semantics claiming this wasn't a "take over". Call it what you want. The facts are the facts.

And I stand by the statement. You obviously mean people to believe that the federal government took over all of these systems. That's the kind of lying cunt you are.

Quote:Quote: The oil industry got Congress to confiscate and destroy all the mass transit systems [NO - "the government" didn't do that][/b] and force everyone to buy gas-burning cars [NO - no one was forced to build cars].

Again, silly semantics. The mass transit system was undeniably dismantled and destroyed. And the 1935 law was unquestionably a major factor. But you're so blindly devoted to your beloved government you'll insist it didn't do it. As far as being forced to buy cars, YES, the public transit system was taken away and people were forced with threat of prison to pay for the roadways for automobiles, whether they wanted to use them or not. So of course that means people were effectively forced to switch to automobiles.

No, the 'silly semantics' are all yours. You constantly state things in an ignorant, biased, disingenuous, ideologically-driven manner. The truth seems unimportant to you.

Probably because you are a lying cunt.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-05-2014, 09:28 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 08:36 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 08:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Jeez, you feel you have the right to completely rewrite history like that? The SOUTH started it???? What was the first battle where shots were fired? Fort sumter, in the south. Who attacked? The north. So the south started it??? They somehow forced the north to invade them and start shooting at them? How did the south do this?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me that by trying to leave,
the north had to attack to prevent their exit, right? So if you come to my home, and then when you try to leave I shoot you to prevent your exit, will the jury buy that I had no choice because you started it?! Wow, what a stretch.

You really are retarded. Fort Sumpter was a Union base that was attacked by the southern city of Charleston. Moron it was in the link you used.

Quote:The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused one Union death.

His grasp of the truth is tenuous at best. It's right up there with his reading comprehension. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 09:40 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 08:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Jeez, you feel you have the right to completely rewrite history like that?

Well, what you lack in knowledge, you make up for in lack of self-awareness. So I guess there's that.

(15-05-2014 08:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The SOUTH started it???? What was the first battle where shots were fired? Fort sumter, in the south. Who attacked? The north. So the south started it??? They somehow forced the north to invade them and start shooting at them? How did the south do this?

Hmm. Maybe it's the part where seven states seceded (on very dubious legal and popular grounds) before Lincoln's inauguration.

Maybe the part where those state governments proceeded to try seizing - unilaterally and by force - federal assets, including Fort Sumter.

And that their cause for secession was literally and explicitly their view that holding other humans as slaves was a good thing?

But, no, please, do go on.

(15-05-2014 08:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Let me guess, you're going to tell me that by trying to leave,
the north had to attack to prevent their exit, right? So if you come to my home, and then when you try to leave I shoot you to prevent your exit, will the jury buy that I had no choice because you started it?! Wow, what a stretch.

No, that's just one more delightful fantasy of yours. I never said that, I never implied that, and I never suggested that.

You invented that position. You then ascribed that position. You then respond to the position you invented and you ascribed as though I held it.

See, you know that whole part where I just explained how you're not capable of honest discussion, because you talk to figments of your imagination instead of other people? You couldn't have demonstrated it better if you tried.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 02:50 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  One has to wonder why your disdain for supposed federal totalitarianism extends to the IRS, but not the EPA, considering that they both operate within the same jurisdiction.
Because if one state pollutes another state, it is damaging the property of another. If one state has lower taxes than another, that's the state's prerogative.

Except it is, and it isn't. I don't know if you know this, but there are local, state, and federal taxes? The area I live in does have lower sales taxes in an effort to encourage people to come in out of state and from Canada to shop, and it works. We have, locally, decided to adjust that tax rate. The lost revenue from a smaller percentage on the sales tax, that is more than offset by the greater amount of travel and business it helps generate. All of this was done within the current system. We made a calculated gamble with our local taxes that affect our local revenue, but we all still pay federal taxes for all that FEMA, DOT, military, etc.

But a state can only kneecap it's taxes so much. If they keep cutting from taxes so much that they then have to make cuts in say their education system, and that leads to the state being unable to maintain a minimum standard, then we have a problem. It's in all of our best interests to publicly fund free and compulsory education, as everyone benefits from a well educated society.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You lost me at 'hyper-sonic', because even the fastest modern bullet train has a top operating speed of 268mph, far from exceeding the sound barrier.
Think about it... There is no sound barrier in a vacuum, otherwise we'd be in a constant sonic boom as the earth spun in space.

Wikipedia vactrain: "The modern concept of a vactrain, with evacuated tubes and maglev technology, was explored in the 1910s by American engineer Robert Goddard, who designed detailed prototypes with a university student. His train would have traveled from Boston to New York in 12 minutes, averaging 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h). The train designs were found only after Goddard's death in 1945 and his wife filed for the patents." Read more about Goddard. His peers were also racing to perfect the technology, but it was all abandoned when the US confiscated the public transport system in 1935. There was no reason to continue working on it since, if they failed, they'd lose everything. If they succeeded, the government would confiscate it.

Need I remind you that we didn't actually break the sound barrier in flight until October 14th, 1947 with the Bell X-1? I imagine that building enclosed vacuum sealed trains were a bit beyond the technological means of private industry in the first half of the 20th century.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The problem with a free-market approach is that there always needs to be a profit.
Not true. In the past the US had tons of non-profit charities. All those St. [whatever] hospitals started as charity, providing free care to the poor.

And non-profits have tax breaks, incentives, and regulations that business do not receive. Apples and oranges numbnuts. Also, did all of those non-profit charities manage to keep themselves operating during the Great Depression? No. They were all privately funded, and those funds dried up (and the charities subsequently collapsed) during the Depression. Private industry and charity failed the public here.

Might I also remind you that it was the purchasing power of the Federal government and it's New Deal public works projects that built the Hoover Dam and the Interstate, which was built for both public benefit and to help move the military easily across the nation in case of Soviet invasion (because you seem really cool with mutual defense at least). This is what started to pull the nation out of the Depression before the Second World War hit and put us over the top.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Some things we have decided are important enough that they should be pursued and maintained in lieu of making a profit, such as education and infrastructure.
Fine, then get it all from non-profits. The key is allow to people to choose.

Unfortunately they failed when we need them the most. See also: Depression, The Great.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Everyone benefited from the Interstate that the Federal Government built in the 1950's, allowing fast and safe travel across states. Our modern economy wouldn't be able to support itself without the Interstate, a highway system that the states alone were not going to coordinate and build by themselves.
WTF?? Did you read anything I wrote? Before the government took over we had a zero-emission, all electric high speed transportation network. The government confiscated it and forced us to drive gas burning cars because the oil industry bought off politicians. Back then, when trains were super fast, safe and convenient, and cars were insufferable, unreliable death traps, the auto industry stood no change of competing. That's why 90% of all trips in the US were done on all-electric mass transit. The auto/oil industry needed the use of government force to coerce us all into using their shitty product. Now millions of people die, it creates horrible pollution, we spend years of our life stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic breathing in exhaust fumes and fighting road rage on roads and bridges that are falling apart. Yet you look at them and say 'look what the government gave us', and I say 'no, look what the government took away. Considering how technology advanced the past 100 years, if government hadn't taken over, we'd be safely zipping around the world now at hypersonic speeds without pollution.

What produced the vast majority of the electricity? Dirty coal-burning plants. There would have been just as much pollution, it would have just come from other sources... Facepalm

Also, we'd still need personal transportation because of the decentralized nature of our population. What of the people who are just expressing their right to live outside of the reach of a metropolitan's mass transit system? Would you deny them the car that allows them to exercise their right no move away from the city? Half of the nation's population resides within just a handful of large and densely populated metro areas. The other half are spread out among the rest of the nation. Mass transit would only be profitable in the urban centers, leaving half of the nation shit out of luck without roads, interstates, and personal transportation. Once again, the United States is far larger than Switzerland; and what works for a nation of 8 million doesn't always scale up for a nation of almost 314 million.

Also, you are using the Free Market's leverage of the government regulation as an indictment against all regulation. It's not, its an indictment against the undue influence of the free market in politics and government. Your Switzerland also regulates these things as well, they're just smarter about it because their government is smaller and more responsive to the people over corporate interest. I want to get money out of politics, I want to get us closer to emulating Switzerland; and Switzerland does not have a laissez-faire economic or social policy.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Where is the private industry racing to fix all of the bridges? They're not, because they haven't figured out a way to scam the taxpayers yet, once they do they'll be all over it (just like private prisons and charter schools).
Back when the bridges were privately owned industry WAS racing to fix them, since their livelihood and return on investment depended on delivering a high quality product. Sure, now that nobody owns the bridges, nobody has any incentive to take care of them. It's the Tragedy of the commons.

How do you make money off of a bridge? You charge tolls. Where was the competition? You only need one bridge to cross a river or gap at one location. Where is the free-market competition once a bridge has already been built? What do you do if a privately owned bridge falls into disrepair? Do you seize it, and sell the right to maintain it to another company? Do you just let the private owner let it stay in disrepair? What about the people who's lives rely on such bridges? What happens if the company goes bankrupt and no one else wants to buy the bridge and repair it because there is not enough profit to be made?

I know, they should just move or rely on private charity.

The current sad state of our infrastructure is not an indictment against the government building and maintain it, it's an indictment against the current skewed political environment that has been bought by the free-market. Funny how none of them, even with the federal government almost in their pocket, are "chomping at the bit" to fix all the bridges.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Remember that the private-sector always needs a profit goal. How well has that worked out for our internet infrastructure? The United States has some of the worst internet in the developed world...
Yeah, and why is that? Because in the US the internet companies have convinced regulators to divy up territory so each company has a monopoly. For example, the California Public Utility Commission draws lines where service can be provided ONLY by Verizon, and others where ONLY AT&T can provide service. The Utilities are behind this regulation since it allows them to charge higher prices for a poorer product. And your solution is MORE of the same regulation?!

That's a real nice strawman you have there, it would be a real shame if someone showed just how full of shit it was.

[Image: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg]

Same regulation? Hardly. Once again, terrible regulation born of too much influence from the free-market. That is bad regulation that isn't made in the best interest of the public, but rather the best interests of the corporations; to the detriment of their competition and the public at large. The solution is better regulation, not none.

I'd like to see the federal government take the core of the infrastructure under it's wing, laying down and maintaining the heart of a next-gen fiber optic network; as I think that nation wide access to fast and reliable internet is in the public's best interest. Then from central hubs, have competition and bids among the free-market ISP's to run the rest of the lines from the central hubs to individual homes. Let them deal with installation and customer service on the local level, where now many more smaller start-ups can now compete because they don't need the massive capitol and investment to build their own fiber-optic hubs. The best of both worlds, which you won't see following Libertarian principles.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once they have that lock on the market, what will be their incentive to improve the infrastructure?
Because, assuming the government doesn't regulate the market, somebody else will be biting at their heals to offer a better product at a better price.

Lack of regulation leads to monopolies (as the most successful eliminate their competition), which inevitably leads to either complete lack of competition or price-fixing cabals (see also: Silicon Valley CEO's agreeing not to head-hunt competitor's talent to help keep all wages down). Look at the steel and oil trusts before they were broken up with anti-monopoly legislation and regulations.

Anti-headhunting agreement protected tech employers.

Silicon Valley’s No-poaching Case: The Growing Debate over Employee Mobility


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That is the problem with capitalism and free-markets...
Name ONE place on Earth anytime in the past 200 years where people had a good standard of living that was NOT capitalist and free-market? How'd that work out in the Soviet Union? What about the old communist China before they switched to a free market system?

That's a real nice strawman you have there, it would be a real shame if someone showed just how full of shit it was.

[Image: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg]

There is a place for the free-market, like consumer goods; and there is a place for government involvement, like infrastructure and defense. Soviet Russia showed the failure of a totalitarian top-down control of all of the means of production. The United State's own history has shown us the failure of unregulated laissez-faire economics. Even in your China example, their country has greatly improved with the infusion of bits of capitalism; but their government still controls the infrastructure. They just wised up to the capitalistic benefits for some markets before the Soviets did.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Before regulations, laborers were disposable commodities. We had children working in coal mines you fucking moron, this happened here in my own fucking state. This is what happens when you let industry regulate itself. Industry didn't end child labor, government regulation did.
That's absurd. It had been tried your way, where some individuals force others to do things against their will, for thousands of years. There was no progress stamping out slavery or child labor--it was rampant. Then during the age of enlightment libertarians, like Thomas Jefferson, got to take over for a spell in much of North America and Western Europe, which passed constitutions, libertarian manifestos, enshrining the value of liberty. Instantly, in all those countries, there was an explosion of innovation. We got germ theory, evolution, an industrial revolution. After thousands of years of slavery and child labor, it was eradicated within a century in those countries which embraced the libertarian (ie classic liberal) values. It was libertarian values that state that all men are created equal and have a right to life, liberty and property, life led to seeing life as precious. By the end of the industrial revolution, long before government took over, working standards were improving by leaps and bounds, child labor and slavery was eliminated. Then around the 1930's government took over and took credit for it. But if government did it, then why, prior to the age of enlightenment, when you had democratic governments for thousands of years, was there no progress? Why after trying it your way for 10,000 years or so were 99.9% of all men slaving away in abject poverty and on average dead by the age of 40, while the 0.1% that controlled the government held all the wealth? Why are you guys so anxious to go back to that system?

That's a real nice strawman you have there, it would be a real shame if someone showed just how full of shit it was.

[Image: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg]

Enlightenment =/= Libertarian.

You don't get to place thousands of years of oppression on me just because it's pre-Libertarian in your eyes. Stop arguing with what you think that I think, and actually address what I've posted. Have I ever implied that I wanted a return to divine monarchies? I've rallied against child labor and slavery, both of which were exploited by the free-markets. Times change, the world changes; it's why they gave us a document that allowed our government to change with it. You don't get to claim the end of slavery as a Libertarian victory while also claiming Jefferson and the other founding fathers; when they enshrined the institution of slavery into their Constitution. It took latter people, and the evolving social and moral zeitgeist, to challenge and abolish slavery; your 'Libertarian' founders utterly failed to do so.

Their vaunted freedom and liberty only applied to white males. It took later people to recognize, and to enshrine and enforce it with the backing of regulation and the force of the Federal Government, that all people were indeed equal. Or did you miss the day they covered the Civil Rights Movement and Woman's Suffrage in history class?


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about the 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act? Do you want to know how many dies in coal mine related accidents in 1968? 311 fatal accident. Do you know what that number was by 2012? Just 19.
Same as always. The free market accomplishes great things and at the last minute government jumps in front and takes credit:

[Image: M822A1F5.GIF]

I notice, that if you actually look at the data points and not just the curve itself, the highest X is right before the establishment of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and it never reached that high ever again.


Founded on May 16, 1910, through the Organic Act (Public Law 179), to deal with a wave of catastrophic mine disasters, the mission of the Bureau of Mines expanded over the years to include:

-The conduct of research to enhance the safety, health, and environmental impact of mining and processing of minerals and materials.
-The collection, analysis, and dissemination of information about mining and processing of more than 100 mineral commodities across the Nation and in more than 185 countries around the world.
-Analysis of the impact of proposed mineral-related laws and regulations upon the national interest.
-Production, conservation, sale, and distribution of helium for essential government activities

From its creation, the USBM was viewed, both nationally and internationally, as the focal point for new and emerging science and technology in the minerals field. Since entering competition in 1978, the Bureau of Mines won 35 R&D 100 Awards, given annually by R&D Magazine for the 100 most important research innovations of the year. This achievement is especially impressive considering the small size of the Bureau's research budget, compared to those of competing organizations, such as E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, General Electric Company, Hitachi, Ltd., the Department of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...u_of_Mines


So essentially you have, once again, entirely miss-characterized the reality of the entire situation.


Also, what did your Libertarian deregulation do to prevent that massive fertilizer plant explosion in west Texas again? Oh right, it didn't. Don't think that I didn't notice how you avoided bringing up a counter-point up to defend that one. Dodgy






(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Which would be great, had we the knowledge we do now before we settled great metropolitan areas that are in disaster prone regions. So the next time an earthquake strikes San Francisco, instead of rebuilding it, we should just leave it in ruins and have the survivors move someplace else?
Duh, of course. If the survivors are going to have rebuild from scratch again anyway, why not build somewhere else, in a non-disaster-prone area so the city won't be wiped out again?! IMO, it's just lunacy that when a natural disaster wipes out an area, causing huge destruction and death, your solution is to rebuild again right in that same spot and wait for it to happen again.

Hey now, why didn't you also quote the rest of my response? Too inconvenient for you, or did you think I'd forget about it?

"The whole point of insurance is to mitigate risk by spreading it out. Those people who own vacation homes on the Florida coast need extra insurance, that they pay a premium for, that those who are not in Hurricane prone areas don't pay. Plus there are plenty of capitalist reasons to rebuild, like the area's flourishing tourism industry that always bounces back. We all help subsidize FEMA, because it can and will help any and all of us if and when we ever need it. We all put money into it as an insurance policy, even if some people need it's help more often than others; we're all happy to pay for it secure in the comfort of knowing it will be there for us too. This is the collective responsibility I mentioned earlier."


Except that just moving is not always an option. New Orleans is situated at the mouth of the Mississippi River, one of the most important waterways in the United States. Many other port cites have to be where they are by necessity, such as San Francisco or Miami, regardless of the earthquakes or hurricanes. Should we force people to move out of the entirety of the Midwest for fear of a random tornado?

Because I'm pretty sure that you've on more than one occasion demanded that people be allowed to live wherever. Consider


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about the state of affairs in Somalia?
Yes, let's discuss Somalia. The libertarian ideal is that all individuals are free to make choices without coercion or threats of violence. You are arguing the opposite, that enforcers with guns (ie police) should coerce people into doing things against their will for fear of violence (like getting shot, tased, imprisoned).

Which system do they have in Somalia? My system that eliminates violence and preserves liberty? Or your system where whoever has the power (be it elected politicians or warlords) uses force against the people? Somalia is the opposite of a libertarian system, but a perfect example of what happens when you take your system of 'might makes right' to its logical conclusion.

That's a real nice strawman you have there, it would be a real shame if someone showed just how full of shit it was.

[Image: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg]

There is a difference between a government agreed to by the majority of people to enforce the will of the majority (with Constitutional protections for minorities and individuals); over a paradise of anarchy.

My next question is, in your Libertarian wet-dream where you would allow people to decide for themselves their own education standards (for example, letting the Bible Belt throw modern science out the windows in favor of Jesus); how many generations would it take before the gun-saturated Deep South resembled war-torn Somalia if left to their own fundamentalist devices? In Somalia you see a complete lack of regulation, the rule of law, education, and the respect for personal rights.

Without the first three, the violation of the fourth is inevitable.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I am highly skeptical of this (considering nearly everything else you post that can be checked is total bullshit).
I gave you the link to the IRS's own website which confirms this. This point, like all of my points, are uncontroversial. They are just inconvenient for your ideology so you choose not to accept them.

They are not 'inconvenient' for my 'ideology', because I am not an apologist for my government. I am critical of it and want it to be improved, not burned to the ground.

As already stated before...

When I suggest you leave the country, it with the full intention of no-strings-attached. No citizenship, no taxes, no mutual obligations.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay, hypothetical time. The point here is that if you move abroad, yet retain your US Citizenship (as opposed to gaining citizenship in another country or seeking political asylum), it is presumably for some reason. As a US citizen, you are expected to contribute to help maintain the country of your citizenship.
See my last post. Just like all other devout followers of the democratic religion. Over and over you insisted that I was full of bull-shit, that US laws couldn't possibly be that fucked up, and that if I didn't like it, surely I could just leave. Once I point out that this IS the doctrine of the church of the democratic party you go defending it!!! Obviously I know you very well because this is precisely what I predicted in my last post.

Which I've already told you; if they are that fucked up, I refuse to defend them. That is some messed up shit, so I'll say it again.

When I suggest you leave the country, it with the full intention of no-strings-attached. No citizenship, no taxes, no mutual obligations.

Now stop projecting your fantasies onto me, alright jackass?


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you want to cut all ties, including financial responsibility to your fellow citizens, then you need to renounce your citizenship.
How? You can't renounce your citizenship until you have other citizenship, or else you're a stateless refugee. Other countries used to offer quick and easy citizenship to US citizens, but the US threatened them and shut that down! And now democrats are arguing that even if you marry and get other citizenship it's a "loophole" they need to close to prevent one's escape!

See above.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But I don't see the problem with US citizens (even abroad) paying their share regardless.
Because, in my mind the government exists to serve the people. It is a service organization. Like any other, if you don't use the services, you shouldn't have to pay for them. You see it the opposite, that the government owns the people, like a master owns a slave, and is thus entitled to take whatever "fair share" it wants of the fruit of your labor, whether or not the government actually provides any services or not. That _IS_ the definition of slavery.

That's a real nice strawman you have there, it would be a real shame if someone showed just how full of shit it was.

[Image: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg]

It is a two way street you ignoramus. You cannot, with how interconnected and interdependent everything is, entirely divest yourself of reliance on the bits of the government you don't like. Your taxes go to fund the military to defend the nation, and those in the armed forces have sworn their lives to defend yours; even if you don't agree with the politicians that direct their use. I didn't agree with the Iraq or Afghanistan Wars, but I'm not badgering my representative for a tax refund for the two wars I didn't like.

That's what happens, not everyone will agree 100% of the time where all of their tax money is spent at all times; this is the essence of compromise you nihilistic simpleton.

In Switzerland do you only use private roads to travel everywhere? Do you only ever go to private doctors and private hospitals where you pay for everything with just your own money? If you had children, would you only send them to an entirely privately funded school with no government education standards and oversight? Do you rely only on private security to enforce laws and protect your rights? Do you only rely on private mercenaries for national defense?

These things (infrastructure, education, law enforcement, defense) are provided for all citizens, whether or not you personally make use of them. It is a system of give and take, not master and slave you bloviating ideologue.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Have you ever lived a paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth existence? Because someone who scoffs at a few hundred dollars doesn't sound like he knows what it's like to have been poor.
I grew up in a trailer in a rural redneck area and worked for minimum wage after school. The day after I graduated I packed everything I owned in my Ford Pinto and, yes, drove out of my home state never to return, with no help from anybody or any money in my pocket. If I can do, it anybody can. Even at minimum wage, a few hundred dollars to buy gas to drive cross-country is only a week's worth of work.

Great, now add three kids to the equation; now the math is a lot different, isn't it? Why do you have three kids you ask? Because the state you grew up in was a fundamentalist Christian one and you were never taught proper sex education, in fact contraception is contraband where you grew up. You lack even a minimum wage or savings, because even that was set at a minimum by the federal government, but this no longer applies in your laissez-faire scenario. Even if you were to escape your state, nobody offering a livable wage will hire you because you are severely unqualified because you lack a basic education, like the ability to read and write.

Funny how your young Libertarian self benefited from public education, public roads, and a federally mandated minimum wage; all of which helped to enabled you to move how you wanted. Funny how that works, isn't it? Facepalm


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It was also the majority that freed the slaves, and there would have never been slavery had the actual majority (ie. the slaves themselves) had any political power.
Yeah, and it was the majority that enslaved them in the first place, so if government defended minorities from the majority, instead of subjecting them to it, there wouldn't ever be slavery!

History Quiz: Which came first? The institution of slavery (as proscribed, regulated, and maintained with religious backing) or the ideals of the Enlightenment?

History Quiz: Which came first? Slavery in the American colonies, or the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution?

Are you really that stupid? Or is this another rhetorical question?


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Need I remind you why slavery was so pernicious and defended so vehemently in the South? Because is was the fundamental basis for their economy, the market supported the perpetuation of slavery. The Slave Owners were all just operating in their own best interest in keep slaves and maintaining their slave-owning culture, as it was the basis for all their wealth and power.
And what was the slave owner's justification for slavery? Oh yeah, the exact same argument you're making that the individual does not own himself and a right to determine his own fate, but rather his liberty is secondary to the needs of "society" and the greater good.

That's a real nice strawman you have there, it would be a real shame if someone showed just how full of shit it was.

[Image: flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg]

I'm sorry, where slave owners in the business of owning slaves to improve the well-being of the whole society? No, they were concerned with their own personal gain at the expense of their slaves. At best you can say they had a collective interest in perpetuating and improving the prosperity of wealthy land-holding white males; at the expense of everyone else.

This is not what I'm advocating. This is what the illusion inside your head is advocating, you delusional twit.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Where was the market drive to liberate the slaves? Oh right, there wasn't one. They were actually liberated by the force of the federal government. Dodgy
Most of the world, and even some states in the US, ended slavery the libertarian way--through non-violent negotiations. They bought the slaves' freedom. But the cost to buy the slaves in the south was around $5b, so Lincoln decided instead to start a war that cost MORE than that, cost a million lives, destroyed the south's infrastructure and economy, leaving them a destitute pile of rubble so that, as always happens in that condition, they become religious fanatics filled with hate so that 100 years later blacks still couldn't even drink from the same fountain as whites, and whites could lynch them with no repercussions. Name one place in the US or the world that ended slavery the libertarian way that had segregation. Government force didn't free the slaves, rather it created a backwards, hate filled, impoverished part of the country.

Complete misrepresentation of history. The Confederacy seceded from the Union, then tried to seize Federal assets by force. They valued their 'freedom' to own other human being so much that they put into motion action that lead to the greatest number of American death in the history of the Nation.

They were religious fanatics before the war, quoting the Bible in defense of slavery long before the first shots were fired. They feared the changing moral and political climate that would see a change to their way of life that they didn't like, and to hell with equality for other human beings! Lincoln had won the election, and they feared abolition being passed legally through the Congress; and so they rebelled and became traitors, for fear of inconvenient change in the name of progress and equality.

They chose armed conflict over equality, to maintain their status quo and enforce it upon their slaves through force. Are those your Libertarian ideals?

Where were the Libertarians freeing the slaves in America?

What was the free-market incentive to relinquish a bunch of unpaid labor?

You can only see this as a Libertarian victory if you completely rewrite and fabricate history, much like you did there.



(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, it's community thinking. So you don't want to pay taxes because you don't have a 'debt' as a citizen. Those public roads you use? The public parks you can use? The public education and libraries you have access to? The public law enforcement and firefighters that safeguard you?
Huh? My only point is that we should be able to leave. If I leave and expatriate, I'm not using any of that stuff. So why do I have to pay for it? To me it's YOU guys who are freeloading since I'm using all the infrastructure in Switzelrand[sic], and paying for it, and still forced to subsidize YOUR infrastructure that I'll never use.

Agreed (in regards to leaving), see above post.


But once again, how come you skipped a whole two paragraphs of examples and questions? Where they too uncomfortable for you to answer (again)? So here they are a second time.


Yeah, you don't have a debt alright; you'd rather just freeload I take it? Hike through the woods to work instead? Have to put out your own house fire? Alright, so what will happen if your house catches fire? Are you going to pay a private firefighting company? Will there be enough of a competition in your area to give you a fair price for their services? What if you don't, or can't, pay for their services; and your fire spreads to your neighbor's house? What then? Who pays for that?

But no, we have collectively decided that fighting fires is in the best interest of all citizens, and it should not be beholden to the market to do so. So we publicly fund firefighters, and enact housing and construction guidelines and regulations, and conduct safety testing for home appliances; all in an effort to prevent fires for the public good. Everyone can call the fire department when in need, and they will come to help you, because they are publicly funded to help the public. Even if you don't like the idea of the firefighters, even if you cheat on your taxes, even if you are destitute and homeless; they have an obligation to help you, because that's what they are paid to do. The same applies to law enforcement and paramedics. Do you really want the law enforcement or paramedics operated expressly for profit? So that your freedoms are not infringed by paying taxes for services you don't choose to support? Go watch Robocop...

(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you benefit from a society, then you do owe a debt to it.
Only the debt you agree to. If you benefit from a taxi driver, what is your debt to him? Only the fare you agree to. The taxi driver can't come back to you 10 years later and say 'you benefited from me, so I am entitled to all the fruits of your labor.' Absurd.

What's absurd is your false analogy.

Taxi drivers are not a public good, paid for by all for the benefit of all; unlike the roads they drive on. Their job is made possible through public works, like the building and maintaining of roadways. You can agree to pay a taxi to get you from point A to B, or you can walk from point A to B; but either way the safest and quickest path will be along a public road. Roads paid for and maintained with taxes on the public, for the benefit of the public.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except that Switzerland is one of the smallest countries in the world. Not everything upscales so nicely
A system of autonomous, local rule scales infinitely.

In this context, define 'local', 'autonomous', 'system', 'rule', and 'infinitely'. Oh, and don't' forget...

[Image: 1395695239462.jpg]

Also, this is now the third time that you've cut off and ignored the entire rest of the paragraph, as I can only imagine that you'd hoped I didn't notice? Se here is the seemingly inconvenient part that you failed to address (for a third time).


...as the country only contains roughly 8 million people; for reference that's less than a third of the 26.45 million in Texas alone. Is it any surprise that your republic is more responsive to the people than many, if not most, of the state governments are here? Also unless I am mistaken, your government is also a representative democracy much like the United States; complete with a three part federal government. Except that your citizens can themselves directly submit referendums, making it in some ways a direct democracy. For one who is terribly fearful of the tyranny of the 51%, you sure didn't pick a country that would dissuade that.


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, did you forget the mention the compulsory service in the Swiss Armed Forces for all male citizens?
I agree that a role of the federal government is to provide a mutual defense. The Swiss have done an amazing job, living in a tiny land-locked enclave surrounded by historically aggressive neighbors, and they've managed to fend them off for 600 years.

So taking away some freedom for mutual safety (regulations)? Not okay.

Taking away some freedom for mutual convenience (infrastructure)? Not okay.

Taking away some freedom for mutual education? Not okay.

Taking away some freedom for mutual defense? A OKAY!

Why is defense given a pass, but everything else is a tyrannical infringement on your freedom?


(15-05-2014 04:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 03:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, did you know that Switzerland also has a similar policy about taxing it's citizens abroad? "All people resident in Switzerland are liable for the taxation of their worldwide income and assets
Are you even capable of reading what you post. See the key word I highlighted? Switzerland, like the rest of the developed world, says if you want to live here (ie a resident) this is what it costs you. If you don't like it, you're free to leave. That is EXACTLY the system I'm advocating, and the opposite of the US system which is that "if you're born here (ie a citizen, something you had no control over), you must pay for life whether you ever live here or not." It's stupid to waste my time like this when what you're posting only supports my position and you're obviously not even reading it...

Fair enough, I made a mistake here. But like I've said already, I support your desire to leave no-strings-attached.

Why do you, on the other hand, compulsively misrepresent history and conveniently ignore entire paragraphs that I posted?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-05-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 09:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  You really are a disingenuous cunt. The Pioneer Zephyr was a diesel-powered railroad train - not an electric tram as you seem to think. And if you knew that,
you are a lying cunt.

Huh? I never said the long haul routes were electric. I was very clear the local light rail's were electric, because they were tethered to terrestial power plants. They didn't have the technology back then for long-haul electric. BUT, my point is that the free market DID always use whatever was the best technology at the time, because in a free market, if you snooze you lose. Stick with the old technology and somebody will always come along with a newer, better, faster, cheaper product. It's totally the opposite with a monopoly where everybody is forced to buy your product regardless. In that case, the only ones who are rewarded are those who preserve the status quo and don't disrupt. If you're a public servant and you stick your note on a wildly ambitious and risky project and it fails, you become an unemployed pariah. And best case, if it's a wild success, you get a pat on the back.

So, EvolutionKills says that on stuff like transportation it's too important to have a profit motive. I say the opposite. It's too important NOT to have a profit motive because without one there can be no progress.

(15-05-2014 09:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  And I stand by the statement. You obviously mean people to believe that the federal government took over all of these systems. That's the kind of lying cunt you are.

In every logical sense of the word the government took over. For example, nationwide government regulators capped the fares. Not just on trains, but even on air transport. If you had a plane and wanted to shuttle passengers from SF to NY for $500, you COULD NOT. All prices were set by government regulators and they determined who could operate (and naturally prices remained outrageously high and air travel was stagnant until the government deregulated in the 70's).

You keep saying that's not "taking over" simply because they government didn't physically confiscate all the property. But, using force to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property _IS_ taking over! YOU are being incredibly disingenuous to say that's not the case. What if I came into your home, told you I would haul you off at gunpoint and lock you in a cell if you used your computer in any way other than precisely what I prescribed? Would you seriously defend this and say it's "not taking over" simply because I didn't physically take the computer with me!?

You're just playing games because the fact is the government DID take over, and politicians began micro-managing public transportation and, as soon as they did, the stellar progress and innovation in that industry came to a grinding halt and has gotten worse and worse ever since and you just keep saying the problem is we need MORE government intervention!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 09:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Hmm. Maybe it's the part where seven states seceded (on very dubious legal and popular grounds) before Lincoln's inauguration.

Dubious legal grounds??? There was NOTHING in the documents the states signed saying that joining the federal government was a one-way street that couldn't be terminated. Anytime a contract has no termination clause it means it can be terminated at-will. NOBODY disputes this.

Yes, it was a huge travesty that blacks were categorized as livestock. But the North was just as culpable. Even the libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, who was adamant that all were born free and equal, and who should have known that blacks were humans since he was fucking them and making babies, and who argued that slavery was a disgrace, even he gave in and went along with it. So the North was, imo, just as culpable. And so, after the South legally invested in those slaves, paid money to buy them and transport them, and built an economy that depended on them, I do not feel that it's reasonable that the North told the South they had to just free and forfeit that "asset". The North was a partner in the tragedy, the North shared responsibility, the North should have been willing to share the burden of righting the wrong. The North should have been willing to open their pocketbooks and help buy the slave's freedom in a peaceful way that respected the people they wronged. The fact that the North refused to accept responsibility and wasn't willing to contribute to righting the wrong, expecting the South to cover the full burden, imo, that means the North wasn't much better than the South. They should have just paid the $5 billion the south demanded and been done with it. The money would have fueled the industrial revolution, making machines to do the work of slave labor, blacks would have become machine operators, and the South's economy would have continued to thrive. Leaving the South a steaming pile of rubble for doing something that the North told them they could do is, to me, immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: