[ComradeRed]

I am familiar with the rightist "libertarian" theory.

Its main problem turns around the concept of "free consent". It presents this as an "abstract value" that is de-coupled from the real material world.

Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

Indeed, in the "Randian universe", one could literally sell oneself into slavery. It would be "consensual" and hence whatever minimal government existed would be prohibited from interfering.

In fact, you could even sell your kids into slavery--being minors, they have no "right of consent" and, again, the minimal government could not interfere. There might well be a law that the kids would have to be emancipated by their new owner when they reached the age of maturity...but it's fair to ask why the minimal government would bother to pass or enforce such a law?

It's common among libertarians--including Rand herself--to attribute the growth of "big government" to the "plots and schemes" of bourgeois liberals, socialists, and communists.

That quite ignores the historical and material causes of the rise of "big government".

The initial reason that capitalists required a "big government" was to protect themselves from each other.

Without regulation, the capitalist class creates a "Hobbesian" world of ruthless and unlimited predation. You need not "out-compete" your competitor if you can simply kill the bastard before he kills you. Late 19th century American capitalism and modern Russian capitalism was/is not very far removed from that...blowing up your competitor's factory was/is an "easy" way to "increase market share".

Marx referred to the modern state as "the executive committee of the capitalist class"...and I think that's pretty accurate.

Of course, the one thing that this "executive committee" agrees upon is the need to keep the working class powerless and exploited. They have their disagreements as to the exact mix of stick and carrot to be applied--Sweden and Nazi Germany provide the "polar extremes" of capitalism from a worker's point of view. Sweden was lots of carrots and not too much stick; Nazi Germany was the opposite, of course.

But either way, that "big government" is not present because of "bad ideas" or "moral turpitude"...it's there because the capitalist class needs it.

And it will get bigger.

[Todd D.]

I am familiar with the rightist "libertarian" theory.

After reading your post I am not sure that you are.

Its main problem turns around the concept of "free consent". It presents this as an "abstract value" that is de-coupled from the real material world.

Free consent is something that belongs to every individual. Governments are the only institution that are legally exempt from rules about free consent and the initiation of foce.

Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

Why? Because you don't like either of the choices? No, it's still consent. Example, finals week at school, I can either party with my friends or I can take my exams. In other words, I either take my exams or I fail my classes. Is that still consent? Absolutely. I weigh the two options and I choose the more attractive one.

Indeed, in the "Randian universe", one could literally sell oneself into slavery. It would be "consensual" and hence whatever minimal government existed would be prohibited from interfering.

Not exactly. Slaves were property that had no rights to life or liberty. Even if you concede to work for free (which people do all the time, just look at your neighbor that asks you to come help with the car), that does not take away your future rights to consent. In that sense, no, logistically it would be impossible to sell yourself into slavery.

In fact, you could even sell your kids into slavery--being minors, they have no "right of consent" and, again, the minimal government could not interfere. There might well be a law that the kids would have to be emancipated by their new owner when they reached the age of maturity...but it's fair to ask why the minimal government would bother to pass or enforce such a law?

Silly example. Children are not property. They may not be able to enter into contracts and the such, but they do have rights. No, you cannot sell your children, because that violates their rights. You can give them up for adoption, but that is completely different. Kids do have rights though.

It's common among libertarians--including Rand herself--to attribute the growth of "big government" to the "plots and schemes" of bourgeois liberals, socialists, and communists.

That quite ignores the historical and material causes of the rise of "big government".

The material causes of "big government" is that there is no incentive for them to limit themselves. Think about it, if you were a senator, would you vote for a bill that would cut your pay in half, or even eliminate your position? Heck no. Thus it grows and grows.

The initial reason that capitalists required a "big government" was to protect themselves from each other.

Without regulation, the capitalist class creates a "Hobbesian" world of ruthless and unlimited predation. You need not "out-compete" your competitor if you can simply kill the bastard before he kills you. Late 19th century American capitalism and modern Russian capitalism was/is not very far removed from that...blowing up your competitor's factory was/is an "easy" way to "increase market share".

Initiation of force is a crime, and blowing up someone's property is likewise a crime, even in a Libertarian society. We are not anarchists, at least most of us aren't. Governments do serve a purpose, and that is to protect citizens from coersion and force. What we object to is that the government becomes the one who uses the force and the coersion.

Marx referred to the modern state as "the executive committee of the capitalist class"...and I think that's pretty accurate.

I don't give any credibility to a man that couldn't even get Supply and Demand right. Marx is the biggest fraud in political history. Backwards theories, backwards ideas, and a worthless system. Bringing him up is like bringing Pol Pot in when discussing pacifism.

Of course, the one thing that this "executive committee" agrees upon is the need to keep the working class powerless and exploited. They have their disagreements as to the exact mix of stick and carrot to be applied--Sweden and Nazi Germany provide the "polar extremes" of capitalism from a worker's point of view. Sweden was lots of carrots and not too much stick; Nazi Germany was the opposite, of course.

If you think Nazi Germany, with their collectivization, gun control, central planning, and social programs, was anywhere near Capitalism, then you have read to much Socialist propoganda.

Besides, let me get this straight. You are against a big government that is the "executive committee of the capitalist class", but are for a big government otherwise. You are the typical "The only reason it hasn't worked is because the right people aren't in charge" Communist. Right.

But either way, that "big government" is not present because of "bad ideas" or "moral turpitude"...it's there because the capitalist class needs it.

And it will get bigger.

Once again, you chastize big government, but then advocate it. Typical, you don't know what you want. Libertarians want to be left alone, it's that simple. "First do no harm", that's all you need to know.

[smashthestate]

It presents this as an "abstract value" that is de-coupled from the real material world.

Free will is by no means an abstract value. It is an ability that every individual possesses. Yes, even you...even communists. Every action conciouss decision you make is an active choice which you can just as ably choose not to make. The consequences of those choices are not avoidable, though.

Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

This assertion is a mockery. Humans must breathe oxygen in order to remain alive. If we do not breathe, we die. However, we still have the choice (albiet such a simple one is hardly seems like a choice).

Are you to contend, based on your reasoning in this example, that we are slaves to breathing oxygen, since the only alternative is death? Please, don't be absurd.

It would be "consensual" and hence whatever minimal government existed would be prohibited from interfering.

Of course it would be consensual. You are using the same absurd reasoning and logic as you did in the previous example. Humans consume food for remaining alive, and if we do not we will die. Are you saying that we do not really choose to eat? Of course we choose, because we know the alternative is much worse...death. That does not mean that we are slaves to eating food. That is just the reality of the situation. Eat food or die, breathe oxygen or die. Those are your choices.

It's common among libertarians--including Rand herself--to attribute the growth of "big government" to the "plots and schemes" of bourgeois liberals, socialists, and communists.

Firstly, Rand was not a Libertarian. She was an Objectivist, a follower of a philosophy that she created.

Secondly, this is true. It is so insanely clear by the dozens upon dozens of examples of previously tried socialist or communist (whatever you want to call it) attempts in this earth, and all have ended in the almost exact same manner. First a revolution happens killing at least hundreds of thousands of people. Second, a omnipotent governemnt is set in place that is supposed to look out for the working class and equally distribute to them the product of their combined labor. Of course, it has NEVER, I repeat NEVER happened in this way, or in the way it was intended.

That quite ignores the historical and material causes of the rise of "big government".

If you have any historical and material evidence proving that historically (not theoretically), socialism, communism, or coersive collectivism in general, has not led to "big" and oppressive government, then by all means present it here and now, because I have about two dozen examples to the contrary.

The initial reason that capitalists required a "big government" was to protect themselves from each other.

Capitalism does not require a "big government." In fact, anarcho-capitalism, although just as theoretical as communism or socialism, can occur with no government whatsoever. And yes, that includes the non-existence of state-protected property rights, or state-protected anything for that matter.

Late 19th century American capitalism and modern Russian capitalism was/is not very far removed from that...blowing up your competitor's factory was/is an "easy" way to "increase market share".

No government regulation stemmed from events such as this. You are telling falsehoods, and unless you can provide historical evidence to the contrary, my statement will remain as is. The idea of capitalism is not unfettered competition, where killing and destroying property is allowed by anyone for any reason. There are laws, just as in any other society within which exists a state.

But either way, that "big government" is not present because of "bad ideas" or "moral turpitude"...it's there because the capitalist class needs it.

Again, you will find that throughout history the most oppressive and onmipotent governments were those whose spoken intentions were to help the people, the proletariet, the working class. The National Socialists or Nazis in Germany, the Soviets in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, about three decades ago in the People's Republic of China.

The smallest governments, indeed, are those which stay out of the affairs of the people as much as is possible. This includes both private social affairs, as well as private economic affairs.

[Noumenon]

I am familiar with the rightist "libertarian" theory.

Its obvious that you aren't. Go read The Ethics of Liberty (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp) and the Libertarian Manifesto (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp).

Indeed, in the "Randian universe", one could literally sell oneself into slavery. It would be "consensual" and hence whatever minimal government existed would be prohibited from interfering.

False. According to libertarian theory, the will is inalienable. You are not obligated to fulfill your part of a contract unless doing so involves implicit theft. For example, if I make a contract where you give me $100 in exchange for me giving you a chair, and you give me the money and I don't give you the chair, that is implicit theft. Enforcing that contract is acceptable. If I make a contract where I sell myself into slavery to someone, it is not acceptable to enforce that contract. Since breaking it doesn't involve implicit theft, it is really nothing more than a promise, which you can break any time.

In fact, you could even sell your kids into slavery--being minors, they have no "right of consent" and, again, the minimal government could not interfere.

Parents do not own their children. And children do have rights, just not full rights. They have the right to not be murdered or sold into slavery.

It's common among libertarians--including Rand herself--to attribute the growth of "big government" to the "plots and schemes" of bourgeois liberals, socialists, and communists.

Kind of hard to avoid that conclusion when socialists and liberals are openly calling for big government and have been the last hundred years.

Without regulation, the capitalist class creates a "Hobbesian" world of ruthless and unlimited predation. You need not "out-compete" your competitor if you can simply kill the bastard before he kills you. Late 19th century American capitalism and modern Russian capitalism was/is not very far removed from that...blowing up your competitor's factory was/is an "easy" way to "increase market share".

A system which allows that is not capitalism. The free market, by definition, is one that is free from aggression. A small government with a big enough police and military force can stop that kind of aggression.

Marx referred to the modern state as "the executive committee of the capitalist class"...and I think that's pretty accurate.

Could be true. Libertarians do not support capitalists unconditionally. We are very much against corporate welfare, and realize that the state exists in some part to cater to big corporations at the expense of the little guy.

[ComradeRed]

Free consent is something that belongs to every individual.

Yes...?

Why? Because you don't like either of the choices? No, it's still consent.

He has the consent to live? That is a right!

Example, finals week at school, I can either party with my friends or I can take my exams.

You'll live irrelevant to finals; education isn't everything. For starters, its not an elephant.

In other words, I either take my exams or I fail my classes. Is that still consent?

But this is not a life or death situation which requires you to sell yourself to live.

Slaves were property that had no rights to life or liberty.

So slaves are not people?

Even if you concede to work for free..., that does not take away your future rights to consent.

Slaves were "liberated" in Rome if they worked long enough with a nice master, does that mean they were not slaves because they had future rights to consent?

Children are not property. They may not be able to enter into contracts and the such, but they do have rights. No, you cannot sell your children, because that violates their rights.

Very well, if they "own themselves", then would they not have the right to "sell themselves" into slavery just like adults?

Perhaps not; rules are different for children. They may technically "own themselves" but may not be allowed to "dispose of themselves".

But it must be noted that this is a marked inconsistency in the general outlook of "right libertarians".

The initiation of force is a crime, and blowing up someone's property is likewise a crime, even in a Libertarian society.

Well, since its a business "deal", legally the government could not do anything.

Governments do serve a purpose, and that is to protect citizens from coersion and force.

Like I say:

The initial reason that capitalists required a "big government" was to protect themselves from each other.

Marx is the biggest fraud in political history.

Maybe, but there are just as many people on the right as on the left that recognize Marx to be a genius. Even if they do not believe his writings, everyone agrees that it is a new approach to the analysis of capitalism and political economy.

If you think Nazi Germany, with their collectivization, gun control, central planning, and social programs, was anywhere near Capitalism, then you have read to much Socialist propoganda.

[url="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm"]Such innocence...[/url

Besides, let me get this straight. You are against a big government that is the "executive committee of the capitalist class", but are for a big government otherwise.

No, communism (i.e. the classless society phase) does not have a government.

Every action conciouss decision you make is an active choice which you can just as ably choose not to make.

But doesn't one have the right to live? Or is it a consentual decision?

Humans must breathe oxygen in order to remain alive. If we do not breathe, we die.

So, is life a right which one retains, or a consentual decision?

Are you to contend, based on your reasoning in this example, that we are slaves to breathing oxygen, since the only alternative is death? Please, don't be absurd.

Well, since no one hoards then sells oxygen, that is one of the few remaining necessities we still have as a right. So far...

Are you saying that we do not really choose to eat?

Well, its an unconcious decision. It is a right to have food. It is an injustice to hoard and sell necessities. But this ultimately leads -in a libertarian society- to slavery.

If you have any historical and material evidence proving that historically (not theoretically), socialism, communism, or coersive collectivism in general, has not led to "big" and oppressive government, then by all means present it here and now, because I have about two dozen examples to the contrary.

The Paris Commune, Israel. Moreover, the "socialist" and "communist" examples you would bring up are indeed fascist. The soviet Union (state capitalist), China (capitalist), Vietnam(capitalist), Laos(fascist), North Korea (fascist), Cuba (capitalist).

In fact, anarcho-capitalism, although just as theoretical as communism or socialism, can occur with no government whatsoever.

From capitalism.org/faq:

Anarchism is not a form of capitalism; anarchism is a form of collectivism, where individual rights are subject to the rule of competing gangs.

No government regulation stemmed from events such as this.

Well, modern russia has everything controlled by the Mob, and 19th Century America (its common knowledge that it was the closest thing to laissez-faire, and just an example from the scores of them is the trans-atlantic railroad. THere was fierce fighting in Utah as who connects to who, which was quite violent unfortunately...).

The National Socialists or Nazis in Germany, the Soviets in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, about three decades ago in the People's Republic of China.

They were/are all fascist! That is right wing for those of you who deny it...

For example, if I make a contract where you give me $100 in exchange for me giving you a chair, and you give me the money and I don't give you the chair, that is implicit theft.

If man A has a contract with man B who sells himself to man A, yet man A does not follow the contract, man B can get the government and/or armed specialists to help him deal with man A.

-------------------------------

It seems to be clear that the "right libertarian" part of the political spectrum have a "less government" bias with strict boundaries set to government functions and activities.

One of those functions, clearly, must be the "security of property" against any form of "un-consensual" alienation. "Thou shalt not steal" or take by force the property of another.

You may sell or trade your property...or even give it away, but no one is allowed to take it from you. If someone tries to do that, you may call upon the government to supply force in your defense...and/or you may hire specialists in the application of violence to defend your property.

At the base of the "right libertarian" approach is the idea that each individual "owns himself"...he may sell, lease, rent, or even give away any part of himself that he wishes, but no one may force him to labor for another or take from him the "fruits" of his labor.

Very well, under these circumstances, I don't understand why someone could not sell himself or herself into slavery.

It would be "consensual"--no violence or threat of violence would be involved. If you thought the price offered for you was "too low", you could freely refuse the transaction and the "buyer" would have to look elsewhere.

The contract could contain various terms agreed to by both buyer and seller. The new slave could insist on prior approval of any sale of himself to a third party, for example. A time limit could be set on his period of servitude...after which, ownership of himself would revert to himself.

Since we are speaking hypothetically here, I won't go into the reasons why someone would want to do that. But I can't see any principled objection that a consistent "right libertarian" could make. The fact that you would find such a "deal" distasteful does not mean that others could not freely "choose" this alternative. You are free, after all, not to buy slaves if the idea is repulsive to you.

Keep in mind, by the way, that a disobedient or rebellious slave would be in breach of contract and could be subject to fines or even imprisonment.

I can see that "right libertarians" would find it even more distasteful to witness the sale and purchase of children into bondage.

But legal traditions throughout all of recorded history have, in one fashion or another, treated parents as the rightful "decision-makers" for children until they reach whatever the legal age of adulthood is. (There are some modern exceptions--partial ones--to this doctrine, of course.)

Perhaps a "right libertarian" social order would not permit parents to sell their children into slavery...or perhaps it would insist that child-slaves be emancipated on their 18th birthday or 21st birthday or whatever.

But, if consistency were the only factor to be considered, it should permit such transactions. If the parents consent to the sale, that "counts" as consent "by" the kids...under traditional legal norms.

As to how "Hobbesian" capitalism in a "right libertarian" regime would be, I concede that I was speculating...based on actual historical events. The first Rockefeller was well known for blowing up his competitors' oil refineries if they refused to sell out to him, for example.

A large police apparatus and/or the maintenance of private security armies to protect industrial properties from sabotage or theft (or to engage in retaliatory attacks) would be features of a "right libertarian" society...to one extent or another.

Should the workers become unduly restive, private armies are also useful; consult the internet on the 1915 massacre in Ludlow, Colorado, for example.

A "right libertarian" regime could hardly intervene on the side of the workers...that would be "depriving" the owners of property of the "right" to do as they wished with their property.

It would be a tough life...unless you were pretty rich.

[smashthestate]

He has the consent to live? That is a right!

He has the ability to choose to live or die, yes. Is that so difficult to understand? If even he has a "right" to life, as you put it, he can still just as easily choose not to live. Not that this would be a choice he would be apt to make, but this example I am using is only to try and prove that people do possess the ability to make choices, even if the choice is, as the cliche goes, between a rock and a hard place. Sometimes that is just the reality of the situation.

But doesn't one have the right to live? Or is it a consentual decision?

No one has any natural rights. Rights are a fabricated ideal from the human mind. The only rights anyone has are those which other people are willing to respect. See below...

It is a right to have food. It is an injustice to hoard and sell necessities.

There is no such thing as a right to have food. Nearly every person would agree that everyone should--morally--be provided with the food they need to survive. However, there simply is not almighty right to food, or to anything for that matter.

If one day humans exhaust the resources of Earth before we are able to exploit the resources from other planets or other sources, then what meaning does a right to food have at that point? It is completely meaningless. Again, the only rights anyone has are those which other people are willing to respect.

You would contend that someone has a natural right to life, a right they are born with, which every human has. What of those people who are murdered? What right to life did they have? It was obviously meaningless.

The soviet Union (state capitalist), China (capitalist), Vietnam(capitalist), Laos(fascist), North Korea (fascist), Cuba (capitalist).

I don't think you are even worthy of a rebuttal on this. You are literally re-writing the defitions of ideas and of history with these statements.

Cuba is capitalist when I point to its misgivings, but you commend it as a socialist wonder when you point out in another thread of its marvelous healthcare system.

Which is it, ComradeRed? Surely it can't be both a capitalist failure and a socialist success...

and just an example from the scores of them is the trans-atlantic railroad. THere was fierce fighting in Utah as who connects to who, which was quite violent unfortunately...).

Funny you should mention that. It was of no doing of the marketplace or of the natural happenings of capitalism that this happened. Indeed, it was the government which oversaw the rationing of massive portions of land to the different competing railroad companies. Without the "help" of the government, the squabble would have never even occured.

They were/are all fascist! That is right wing for those of you who deny it...

Well Jesus! They were all at least self-proclaimed communists. Maybe they were fascists (of course any person with an ounce of intelligence can see that is not so; you obviously have no grasp on what the political system of fascism is really about), but can you then name at least one fairly successful attempt at communism?

Or were they all miserable failures?

You can't fit a square peg into a round hole. No matter how many times you try, ComradeRed, they just won't fit!

[Rex Little]

The initial reason that capitalists required a "big government" was to protect themselves from each other.

Without regulation, the capitalist class creates a "Hobbesian" world of ruthless and unlimited predation. You need not "out-compete" your competitor if you can simply kill the bastard before he kills you. Late 19th century American capitalism and modern Russian capitalism was/is not very far removed from that...blowing up your competitor's factory was/is an "easy" way to "increase market share".

Not to agree with any of ComradeRed's other statements, but I'm afraid he's on to something here. Since the Progressive era, big businesses have entrenched themselves by getting the government to impose regulations which handicap their smaller competitors. If that avenue were closed (as it would be in a libertarian system), they might well fall back on old-fashioned thuggery. That would of course be illegal, but in practice it's very difficult to stop if the other guy can afford more goons than you can.

[Todd D.]

If that avenue were closed (as it would be in a libertarian system), they might well fall back on old-fashioned thuggery. That would of course be illegal, but in practice it's very difficult to stop if the other guy can afford more goons than you can.

No, this is downright false. Police protect every citizen from the initiation of force, be them rich, poor, black, white, whatever. Falling back to old fashioned thuggery would put them right back to the slammer, where they belong.

[ComradeRed]

Slaves were property that had no rights to life or liberty.

Right, free people have the rights to life and liberty...

No one has any natural rights.

Or do they? Appearently not according to libertarians.

[...]the only rights anyone has are those which other people are willing to respect.

What?

Which is it, ComradeRed? Surely it can't be both a capitalist failure and a socialist success...

Sort of ironic that it respects the rights of health care, life, etc. even though they are not libertarian, eh? Cuba has conformed to capitalism, as sad as it is

Without the "help" of the government, the squabble would have never even occured.

No, without the motivation of the government, it would have taken a couple of decades longer. But blaming the government for the fault of the capitalists is not very responsible.

Well Jesus! They were all at least self-proclaimed communists. Maybe they were fascists (of course any person with an ounce of intelligence can see that is not so; you obviously have no grasp on what the political system of fascism is really about), but can you then name at least one fairly successful attempt at communism?

They were/are pseudo-marxists, and for the successful attempt at capitalism: the Paris Commune.

Or were they all miserable failures?

They were pseudo marxists, no real communist has a "great leader" nor a "vanguard party". Certain "communists" here believe in that stuff, and according to the pofo quiz, they are not Marxist (nor more marxist than me!) I am a real communist.

Police protect every citizen from the initiation of force, be them rich, poor, black, white, whatever.

No, the police initiates force against the poor, black, etc.

Not to agree with any of ComradeRed's other statements, but I'm afraid he's on to something here.

I'd hate to say I told you so, but...

[Rex Little]

Police protect every citizen from the initiation of force

In theory, sure, but get real. If a torch hired by your competitor sets fire to your factory and fades into the night, there's precious little the police can do.

[smashthestate]

What?

What? What?

Do you have anything to say besides that?

Sort of ironic that it respects the rights of health care, life, etc. even though they are not libertarian, eh?

I don't see the irony...

No, without the motivation of the government, it would have taken a couple of decades longer.

Can you substantiate this claim? Why would it have taken longer if the government had not gotten involved?

But blaming the government for the fault of the capitalists is not very responsible.

For their fault? What fault? For what were they at fault?

They were/are pseudo-marxists

Is that another term for describing them as capitalist, as you have already done once? Or are you changing your opinion?

[ComradeRed]

I don't see the irony...

But you (or one of your libertarian "comrades") also said:

No one has any natural rights.

So libertarians proclaim no one has any natural rights, yet cuba (what you call socialist, I call pseudo marxist) recognizes the natural rights of food, shelter, etc. Cuba is the exact opposite of your ideology and yet you deny your ideology to recognize these basic principles of giving rights to live!

Can you substantiate this claim? Why would it have taken longer if the government had not gotten involved?

From an economic standpoint it is monopolizing the east/west connection, having exclusive railservice to go from east to west and west to east. It makes shipping goods and people easier, and the news gets to both sides faster. There is, without any doubt in my mind, the motivation to get capitalists to do this. However, the government acted as a catalyst in this situation.

For their fault? What fault? For what were they at fault?

Forgive me, fault in italian is the same as responsibility (you see, I am learning several languages at once, and have mixed some togather). It was the capitalists' responsibility to go to the west/east. The government took the spot of the market to 'motivate' the capitalists to make a connection; however, this was not good in my opinion (don't ask why).

Is that another term for describing them as capitalist, as you have already done once? Or are you changing your opinion?

No, they are pseudo-leftists. Maybe some day they will return to leftism and communism, but not any time soon.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: I am a REAL leftist, a REAL Marxist. Not a pseudo-cargo cult leftist.

[Tim]

If you've read Robert Nozick's 'Anarchy, State and Utopia', theres a theory called the Wilt Chamberlian argument, that goes along the lines that if someone acquires property through legitimate means, then it is their right to have it.

Plus, taxation is also argued as slavery in that it means one is working for another and not being directly rewarded for it. For instance, i work 8 hours a day. 4 hours of that goes unpaid, because it is taken in taxation. Say that 4 hours goes to a benefit cheat or someone who won't work. That, is slavery, because one is not being rewarded directly for their work, and the individual is working for someone who isnt.

(btw, ive simplified a very complicated theory , but its worthwhile readin Nozick's book. It's a good case against socialism and why 'Right wing' lbertarianism is the best way forward)

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Slavery is always a bad idea. Not simply the biggotry issues, but it's very easily corrupted. Most people abuse thier slaves and while alot of prisoners may deserve what they get and make suitable slaves.. they're murderers and rapists, either the abusive master or the criminally insane slave will survive. Evil versus Evil. Why promote more hate then need be?

Also slavery's economic issue would quickly become standarized by goverment, thus giving them more power and tottaly neglecting the prime objective of libertarinism.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

ComradeRed's judicious use of exclamation points has made me a true believer.