The Slave Trade?

Nathyn:

The difference hasn't really been noticeable, in practice, because historically people have still just referred to both as "slavery."  When you see a half-naked person who has no control over their life, you don't see whether or not that action was entered into through contract or coercion. All you see is just a hale-naked person who has no control over their life.

Nice how you dodged the questions I posed by saying 'the difference hasn't been noticeable'.

Nathyn:

In some cases, like in Africa, slavery was compulsive. In a lot of others cases, such as modern slavery, people became slaves-by-debt. It's the basis for laws banning slavery and allowing for bankruptcy.

If you owe me a lot of money and don't pay up, according to Anarchism, I have the right to seize your assets, if not simply use violence... If the only thing you have is you, then what do I do?

Well, if you have no assets to seize, due to *your* defaulting on the terms of the contract that *you* engaged in then I suppose there is nothing to be done about it except to try to seize your future earnings in order to pay back the debt *you* personally guaranteed against your future earnings. Where exactly is the part where someone held a gun to your head and said 'sign here'?

Or I suppose the debt holder could just write it off because requiring someone to fulful their voluntary contractual obligations is too much like slavery for their tastes.

I haven't read the rest of the comments to this drivel but owing someone money doesn't give them the right to use violence against you -- unless of course it's to recover *their* property in your possession that you refuse to hand over to service your now defaulted debt. Same as if you try to stop the repo man from taking 'your' car with a baseball bat...that probably isn't going to work out too well for legally or personal safety wise.

What's wrong with accepting a little personal responsibility for one's own actions anyway?

"Oh, oh because 'slavery' is bad and forcing me to pay my debts is just as bad as slavery because someone gets to enjoy the fruits of my labor even though I had no problem enjoying the fruits of theirs while I spent the money I borrowed from them. "

Grow a frickin' backbone, kid... 

kdnc:

gethky:

kdnc:

That free trade is amoral is not a contention it is a truism.

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

No. Slavery is immoral. Free trade is an entirely seperate issue. As Grant has nicely illustrated.

 

Grant:

That is a good question. Obviously the appropriation of slaves is immoral. But what about the trader who simply buys and sells them?

 

If trading slaves involves coercion, then it is an immoral act. 

kdnc:

gethky:

kdnc:

That free trade is amoral is not a contention it is a truism.

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

No. Slavery is immoral. Free trade is an entirely seperate issue. As Grant has nicely illustrated.

"But what about the trader who simply buys and sells them?" - Grant

If trading in slavery involves coercion, then isn't the slave trade immoral?

Anonymous Coward:

Nathyn:

The difference hasn't really been noticeable, in practice, because historically people have still just referred to both as "slavery."  When you see a half-naked person who has no control over their life, you don't see whether or not that action was entered into through contract or coercion. All you see is just a hale-naked person who has no control over their life.

Nice how you dodged the questions I posed by saying 'the difference hasn't been noticeable'.

Given the fact that I'm like chum in a sea of sharks here, you should cut me some slack for not responding to every point, just the most relevant ones.

To respond: I disagree. I could dig up some photos of child slaves in India or elsewhere, today. You have absolutely no idea of telling whether they're slaves-by-contract or not.

I agree that a lot of people that are just plain poor may look like slaves, but that's not really the point: The key point is that the conditions of slavery are the same, regardless of the means by which slavery is entered into. That's what makes slavery so barbaric, not because it violates some silly, abstract theory of "self-ownership."

 

Anonymous Coward:

Nathyn:

In some cases, like in Africa, slavery was compulsive. In a lot of others cases, such as modern slavery, people became slaves-by-debt. It's the basis for laws banning slavery and allowing for bankruptcy.

If you owe me a lot of money and don't pay up, according to Anarchism, I have the right to seize your assets, if not simply use violence... If the only thing you have is you, then what do I do?

Well, if you have no assets to seize, due to *your* defaulting on the terms of the contract that *you* engaged in then I suppose there is nothing to be done about it except to try to seize your future earnings in order to pay back the debt *you* personally guaranteed against your future earnings. Where exactly is the part where someone held a gun to your head and said 'sign here'?

Or I suppose the debt holder could just write it off because requiring someone to fulful their voluntary contractual obligations is too much like slavery for their tastes.

I haven't read the rest of the comments to this drivel but owing someone money doesn't give them the right to use violence against you -- unless of course it's to recover *their* property in your possession that you refuse to hand over to service your now defaulted debt. Same as if you try to stop the repo man from taking 'your' car with a baseball bat...that probably isn't going to work out too well for legally or personal safety wise.

What's wrong with accepting a little personal responsibility for one's own actions anyway?

"Oh, oh because 'slavery' is bad and forcing me to pay my debts is just as bad as slavery because someone gets to enjoy the fruits of my labor even though I had no problem enjoying the fruits of theirs while I spent the money I borrowed from them. "

Grow a frickin' backbone, kid... 

 

Here's the problem, though: Since you agree that there's subjective utility, how could seizing a person's assets for defaulting on a contract even be valid? What I mean is, if somebody defaults, how much stuff do you seize and what do you seize, if it's not in-kind the same thing promised in the contract?

I.E., if I promise to have sex with you, signing a contract, and I don't deliver, what are you going to take? It's totally arbitrary, if you believe in subjective value.

Even if I owe you $10, if I don't pay up, you can't just seize $10. You should have some right to seize more than that, because your time-preference dictated that when you lent me money, you wanted it back at a certain time for a certain interest rate. If you have to wait even longer, who's to say your time-preference, at that point, doesn't dictate a gazillion rate of interest increase?

gethky:

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

This is actually an easy question to answer.  The only moral trade here is to purchase a slave's freedom. 

The other possibilities; to purchase a slave and keep him in slavery, or purchase a slave and sell him to a third party are not only immoral, but clearly criminal.   In the former case, even if the conditions of his slavery are better than before, it's still a criminal act because a human being is still being denied his natural rights. In the latter case, even if the trader never actually takes posession of the slave, selling the slave presupposes that the slave is in fact owned.  And anyone who claims ownership of another human being is committing a criminal act.

 So do tell, how does one argue against slavery without some 'abstract' theory of rights? On account of its barbarism? Then demonstrate why this alone suffices, on grounds of an 'abstract' theory of rights that this is sufficient to render slavery undesirable. The problem of course, is, self-ownership isn't the only 'abstract' theory of rights. They all are, the Rawlsian no less than the Objectivist views. So much for 'abstract' theories of rights, then.

I am sorry, but don't we have here a positive/normative mixup?

Positive statement: Free market seeks maximum efficiency and slavery is inefficient ergo slavery shall not last in totaly free market

Normative: Slavery is immoral and there is nothing in a free market that prevent slavery ex ante ergo free market is immoral

Anonymous Coward:

leonidia:

Have you actually read anything by Rothbard?

That's a rhetorical question right?

I was thinking about starting a thread "Help Save Nathyn" where we could compile a reading list and generally help him out. Stuff like review his future class schedules and interview his professors to see what kind of future attacks he is likely to come up with so we could preempt his trollish activities by giving him the information he needs to understand the counter-point that we will invairably have to provide.

All this is of course is based on the assumption his trolling is a cry for help and that he's not just an attention whore... 

Yes, it was a rhetorical question. It seems that either:

1) He's done the reading and doesn't understand it, or

2) He hasn't done the reading, and is tossing around wild statements about what he thinks it contains, or

3) He's here to troll. 

Or possibly a combination of any of these.  You can try to help him if you want, but unless he shows a genuine desire to learn the basics, and refrain from trollish activities, it seems like a waste of time. 

Inquisitor:

 So do tell, how does one argue against slavery without some 'abstract' theory of rights? On account of its barbarism? Then demonstrate why this alone suffices, on grounds of an 'abstract' theory of rights that this is sufficient to render slavery undesirable. The problem of course, is, self-ownership isn't the only 'abstract' theory of rights. They all are, the Rawlsian no less than the Objectivist views. So much for 'abstract' theories of rights, then.

Yes, on account of its barbarism. That's also what utterly rips apart the "Taxation is theft!!!" argument, or should say war-cry.

By simply looking at it, and seeing how it shows total disregard for human life and offends the conscience of every rational, civilized person.

Ethics can't really be firmly established on philosophy, only justified and discussed, assuming we make the same basic assumptions. Abstract theories of rights are important, but only in as much as they improve the individual human condition.

A regard for human life is taken as axiom because it's only through a mutual regard for eachothers' well-being that we actually further eachothers' well-being. This is what it means to say that freedom and justice are reciprocal. All ethics, including the ethics of liberty by classical liberals, are founded upon it. You see this most clearly in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.

If Rothbard, through his sophistry, happens to come to the conclusion that a holocaust is justified for his own liberty's sake, his entire argument falls apart because his basic assumptions about the value of humanity contradict that of just about everyone.

If "human life" isn't important to you, if you're not a Humanist but look at other human beings as insects to be limitlessly bought, sold, and used for our own freedom's sake, then we have no grounds to discuss ethics at all.

Rothbard seems to not make any assumption of humanity's value at all, but takes simply his own life to be valuable and tries to convince the world to capitulate to his idea of freedom, for his own sake. Had you been born a sickly child in Sparta and tossed away or a neglected child in an American ghetto, Rothbard sees nothing wrong with this.

If you see nothing wrong with it either, simply because you and Rothbard, by chance alone, were not born in Sparta or an American ghetto, then we have no way of discussing what's "right" at all. But you certainly have no claim to be an individualist, unless by "individualist," you mean psychotically narcissistic, which Rothbard seems to be.

This psychological evaluation seems to fit, based upon Justin Raimondo's description of the man:

http://www.againstpolitics.com/austrian_economics/steele_rothbard.htm

Murray fancifully saw himself as something of a libertarian Lenin. While his dogmatic invective and propensity to conspire may sometimes have seemed reminiscent of the founder of Bolshevism, Rothbard was too playful, too volatile, and too much smitten by the allure of pure ideas to build or to lead a vanguard party.

His political life became an erratic succession of alliances, each one enthusiastically pursued for a few years, then angrily abandoned, with his erstwhile confederates anathematized, though unlike Rand he would sometimes team up with them again later, old differences forgiven if not forgotten.

leonidia:

gethky:

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

This is actually an easy question to answer.  The only moral trade here is to purchase a slave's freedom. 

The other possibilities; to purchase a slave and keep him in slavery, or purchase a slave and sell him to a third party are not only immoral, but clearly criminal.   In the former case, even if the conditions of his slavery are better than before, it's still a criminal act because a human being is still being denied his natural rights. In the latter case, even if the trader never actually takes posession of the slave, selling the slave presupposes that the slave is in fact owned.  And anyone who claims ownership of another human being is committing a criminal act.

I think you may have opened the proverbial can of worms:

1. I don't believe freedom can be purchased, although one could purchase a slave and then go through one's local society's recognized procedure to chamge the slave's status to a freeperson.

2. Keepng or selling slaves does indeed involve coercion and is therefore immoral, but not necessarily criminal sans government.

3. Improving the slave's conditions still involes coercion, but I can't agree that such a concept as "natural rights" is meaningful.

4. I'd venture a guess that most parents would claim ownership of their young children.

Yes, on account of its barbarism. That's also what utterly rips apart the "Taxation is theft!!!" argument, or should say war-cry.

Non sequitur, my dear troll. You have not proven why barbarism == immoral. Your other claim leaves even more to be desired.

By simply looking at it, and seeing how it shows total disregard for human life and offends the conscience of every rational, civilized person.

Gay sex offends a lot of 'right-minded' individuals. Who gives a ***? I don't actually disagree that looking at our moral intuitions is a good starting place for ethical theory; but it is hardly what will be the ultimate determinant of what actually is moral/ethical or not.

Ethics can't really be firmly established on philosophy, only justified and discussed, assuming we make the same basic assumptions. Abstract theories of rights are important, but only in as much as they improve the individual human condition.

 Are you an emotivist/subjectivist then? Seems not, since you adhere to consequentialism, again itself an 'abstract' theory.

A regard for human life is taken as axiom because it's only through a mutual regard for eachothers' well-being that we actually further eachothers' well-being. This is what it means to say that freedom and justice are reciprocal. All ethics, including the ethics of liberty by classical liberals, are founded upon it. You see this most clearly in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.

Abstract theory, yet again. J. S. Mill did a lot to elaborate upon the idea in Utilitarianism, FYI. Worth a read.

If Rothbard, through his sophistry, happens to come to the conclusion that a holocaust is justified for his own liberty's sake, his entire argument falls apart because his basic assumptions about the value of humanity contradict that of just about everyone.

I see. So now popular vote determines what is moral or isn't? Of course, though, Rothbard's theory comes strongly against slavery. So much of your argument is whining about its being phrased in the language of property, and missing the forest for the trees.

If "human life" isn't important to you, if you're not a Humanist but look at other human beings as insects to be limitlessly bought, sold, and used for our own freedom's sake, then we have no grounds to discuss ethics at all.

Indeed. This still isn't sufficient as a justification for an ethical system, it is merely a reason why one might speak in terms of it. 

Rothbard seems to not make any assumption of humanity's value at all, but takes simply his own life to be valuable and tries to convince the world to capitulate to his idea of freedom, for his own sake. Had you been born a sickly child in Sparta and tossed away or a neglected child in an American ghetto, Rothbard sees nothing wrong with this.

If you see nothing wrong with it either, simply because you and Rothbard, by chance alone, were not born in Sparta or an American ghetto, then we have no way of discussing what's "right" at all. But you certainly have no claim to be an individualist, unless by "individualist," you mean psychotically narcissistic, which Rothbard seems to be.

This psychological evaluation seems to fit, based upon Justin Raimondo's description of the man:

Spare me the psychologizing. You do not even understand Rothbard. His task was to show that all rights can be re-constructed on the basis of the notion of property, much like JS Mill showed human flourishing is explicative of moral intuitions.  Whether Rothbard was correct in divorcing personal morals from social ethics (and whether he was correct that no positive obligations arise to one's children) is a matter of contention amongst Austrians. But please at least get what he is saying right.

gethky:

1. I don't believe freedom can be purchased, although one could purchase a slave and then go through one's local society's recognized procedure to chamge the slave's status to a freeperson.

By "purchasing a slave's freedom", I mean buying the slave so as to release him immediately. i.e. without claiming ownership.

gethky:

2. Keepng or selling slaves does indeed involve coercion and is therefore immoral, but not necessarily criminal sans government.

Wrong; with or without government, coercion is criminal.  It is a violation of natural law (or private law) and by definition is criminal.  There's a difference between immorality and criminality, but the difference has nothing to do with the presence of government.  

gethky:

3. Improving the slave's conditions still involes coercion, but I can't agree that such a concept as "natural rights" is meaningful.

Are you saying that natural rights doesn't apply in this case, or that you don't accept the concept of natural rights at all?  I think most people here would disagree with you.

gethky:

 

4. I'd venture a guess that most parents would claim ownership of their young children.

  Parents don't own their children.  Children are not property. Parents are not free to do whatever they wish their children precisely because they are not property.  They have the custodial rights to their children.  There's a difference.

Jonatan K:

I am sorry, but don't we have here a positive/normative mixup?

Positive statement: Free market seeks maximum efficiency and slavery is inefficient ergo slavery shall not last in totaly free market

Normative: Slavery is immoral and there is nothing in a free market that prevent slavery ex ante ergo free market is immoral

Slavery, from the present-day perspective, may see grossly inefficient, but it must have been sufficiently efficient for the plantation owners of North America. The markets then were so much freer of government regulations than present-day markets that I, perhaps wrongly theoretically, think of trade then as "free trade." My main point, however, is that the slave trade was immoral.

Nathyn:

Ethics can't really be firmly established on philosophy, only justified and discussed, assuming we make the same basic assumptions. Abstract theories of rights are important, but only in as much as they improve the individual human condition.

I think its important to mention that morals are evolved memes. Most people don't understand why they obey certain ethical codes, they are simply passed down from parents to child. Some things may "feel" right to them, and these feelings are probably based on mellenia of genetic and intellectual evolution. However, its easy to see where this evolution can produce errors: many cultures have absurd and destructive codes of morals.

The "abstract theories" of the philosophy of ethics are very different. They seeks to understand morals and improve upon them by applying intellect. Its easy to see where this process can produce errors: Communism and extreme nationalism were the biggest errors of the 20th century. Others might include pre-industrial Japan's isolationism and their later imperialism.

Democratic morality is based on the morality of the masses, and so is largely the result of evolution without any much in the way of philosophizing (most people just don't have the interest or time to engage in true ethical debates).  While democratic morals probably have merit (as bad moral codes tend to die out on their own, albeit slowly), they cannot really be used to critique philosophical positions beyond the simple: "we've been doing it this way, and it works". Such arguments are inherently conservative.

In other words, you've got to refute logic with logic, Nathyn. Show why your system of ethics is superior, if you can. Think of the results which came from the lack of intellectual challenge to failed idealologies such as communism. Although I think you are in the wrong, bad ideas need to be challenged.

All right, here we go:

1. By merely releasing a slave without due process you run the risk of having the sherriff/bounty hunter return the slave and bill you for the bounty.

2. A criminal act is defined in law. There was such a thing as unwritten common law way back when, but nowadays all laws are written (with the probable exception of the so-called "income tax law"). Coercion is illegitimate in a libertarian markekplace. Coercion is prevalent in the present-day marketplace because government control is ubiquitous. 

3. Rights are high-abstractions not amenable to empirical detection.

4. Ownership is an interesting concept. Whether claims to ownersip are valid or not is beyond my purview.