Very thorough and interesting commentary about the The Truth About Slavery: Past, Present and Future

 

Thoughts?

 

I thought it was very interesting. I liked that he gave a really good account of what slavery really was.

I thought it was very interesting. I liked that he gave a really good account of what slavery really was.

Yes same here.  The picture is really incomplete without an understanding of the socioeconomic pressures being applied by the state.  Many of the statistics he were talking about were quite shocking to me!

 

Edit: with -> without

I've listened to the whole thing. Not sure where he gets his numbers from, some of them might be his own estimation. I definitely agree with his statement that slavery was (is) a power issue and not a racial one is very true.

 

On the other hand, I don't think the other conclusions (that states were ultimately responsible for slavery, and that slavery wouldn't survive in a market environment) he draws are accurate.

awwww, I wanted to do a "ctrl+f belgium" on that

 

do we get mentioned?

awwww, I wanted to do a "ctrl+f belgium" on that

 

do we get mentioned?

 

n0

I've listened to the whole thing. Not sure where he gets his numbers from, some of them might be his own estimation. I definitely agree with his statement that slavery was (is) a power issue and not a racial one is very true.

 

On the other hand, I don't think the other conclusions (that states were ultimately responsible for slavery, and that slavery wouldn't survive in a market environment) he draws are accurate.

Did you check the description box where he lists the works cited?

 

His point about states making it illegal for US slaveholders to voluntarily free their slaves as well as forcing conscription of slave hunters both would never occur in the free market.  Not to mention that in an unhampered economy you have ownership of not only the products that you produce from your own labor, but also ownership of your labor.

Anyone care to summarize the main points of this video that haven't already been mentioned? I don't have 40 minutes to burn.

I thought he brought up some good points. But too tired to check references, ect, ect. As I have Irish in me, I forget even about Irish slavery. (I know, I'm horrible.) But yeah, racial is something that is hard to kill. Even as time passes. I personally don't care, but others still get hurt and take offense and some simply dislike certain races. Why? I really don't know. Its something I personally can't understand from my point of view. Skin color is just a color to me. I try to look past that at the person themselves. How they conduct themselves, what they like, dislike, how they talk. Those are more important to me. Course, if I hade to guess, it have to be something instilled by your parents if you dislike a race. Kids don't seem to care one way or another. if a white guy hade a red shirt on, and a colored guy hade a green shirt on, they'd describe them by saying there shirt color. (Cute But true, <Where did we lose that along the way growing up?)

Did you check the description box where he lists the works cited?

 

TBH I didn't notice there was a description section, my mistake

 

His point about states making it illegal for US slaveholders to voluntarily free their slaves as well as forcing conscription of slave hunters both would never occur in the free market.  Not to mention that in an unhampered economy you have ownership of not only the products that you produce from your own labor, but also ownership of your labor.

 

Maybe keeping slaves at a plantation is not an economical setup (large and open area, easy to escape from), but there are circumstances where keeping slaves is in fact more economical than paying for labor. The evidence for that is that human trafficking for various purposes still exists today DESPITE having an added cost of being illegal (the persons dealing in such activities being persecuted by the state).

 

 

Maybe keeping slaves at a plantation is not an economical setup (large and open area, easy to escape from), but there are circumstances where keeping slaves is in fact more economical than paying for labor. The evidence for that is that human trafficking for various purposes still exists today DESPITE having an added cost of being illegal (the persons dealing in such activities being persecuted by the state).

 

Which type of human trafficking are you referring to?  I am not terribly well-read on this topic, but from what I do know there are a number of different categories of human trafficking that includes many times voluntary behavior such as prostitution; which I believe is within the rights of an individual to procure a profit for their sexual labor as long as it is voluntary.  Does human trafficking include illegal immigration?  When I go into Google it seems there is a number of different views about what falls into the category.

There is certainly some confusion surrounding the term, but Human Trafficking is generally understood to be against the will of the individual, as opposed to the Smuggling of Humans, which is consensual.

 

Basically trafficking in humans is the slavery of our time.

Edited February 23, 201412 yr by ccabal86

There is certainly some confusion surrounding the term, but Human Trafficking is generally understood to be against the will of the individual, as opposed to the Smuggling of Humans, which is consensual.

 

Basically trafficking in humans is the slavery of our time.

Ah yes I see what you are saying now.  Well certainly the state is not all to blame, but the points that this person makes to me are very compelling examples about how the state made the problem worse.

Going to go briefly by the comments, if I get a good bite I might view the piece.

 

Anything that concludes with anti-government and pro-market I would give a lot of scrutiny - The two conclusions give me significant distrust and as my mind isn't the strongest I will decline engaging probable sophistry. I find it concerning there's arguing to undermine the social justice reasons for government (by presenting it as a slavery issue), and then saying money will fix a human problem (total falsehood).

 

It sounds like there is an interesting definition of slavery, which I wouldn't mind hearing.

Feel free to view the video, there's not much anti-statism in this particular one, it's really more about slavery.

 

I'll be more than happy to discuss this further on the weekend, but not before, since on weekdays I don't have the mental capacity to type up decent posts

Same with the Ukraine thread, but I just couldn't muster enough strength, lol

Feel free to view the video, there's not much anti-statism in this particular one, it's really more about slavery.

 

I'll be more than happy to discuss this further on the weekend, but not before, since on weekdays I don't have the mental capacity to type up decent posts

Same with the Ukraine thread, but I just couldn't muster enough strength, lol

haha i know what you mean.  One of these days I should hop on mIRC and then we can have a proper conversation

Feel free to view the video, there's not much anti-statism in this particular one, it's really more about slavery.

 

I'll be more than happy to discuss this further on the weekend, but not before, since on weekdays I don't have the mental capacity to type up decent posts

Same with the Ukraine thread, but I just couldn't muster enough strength, lol

Feel free to view the video, there's not much anti-statism in this particular one, it's really more about slavery.

 

I'll be more than happy to discuss this further on the weekend, but not before, since on weekdays I don't have the mental capacity to type up decent posts

Same with the Ukraine thread, but I just couldn't muster enough strength, lol

Did we watch the same video? You must have gotten stuck in the body of the video with all of the (unsourced) facts, and forgotten the introduction and conclusion, which make it very clear that the cause of slavery is crony capitalism, and that the free market has nothing to do with it (the honor of his sacred cow is protected). He's quite right that the free market has nothing to do with it. Since there has never been a free market and most likely never will be, the free market has nothing to do with anything in history or reality.

 

He does on occasion point the finger at the true culprits, the owners. But he misses the point when he blames the state. Yes, the owners use the state for their own purposes. But that's what the state is, a tool that is used by those who have the power to wield it. There are times when it has been used against slavery; as he pointed out the British Navy stopped the slave trade. It has been used to promote the ideals of the free market; anti trust enforcement, protection of the commons, property rights protection. It has even been used to promote the welfare of the common man over the owners; the New Deal, OSHA, minimum wage.

 

It is a mistake to view the state as a single entity with one agenda or set of interests. The state is a tool that many different classes of people wrestle for control of. If his ideal free market is ever going to come to pass, it is going to rely on the state to prevent the owners from warping the market for their own gain. By vilifying the state he's not only shooting wide of the point, he's shooting himself in the foot.

Did we watch the same video? You must have gotten stuck in the body of the video with all of the (unsourced) facts, and forgotten the introduction and conclusion, which make it very clear that the cause of slavery is crony capitalism, and that the free market has nothing to do with it (the honor of his sacred cow is protected). He's quite right that the free market has nothing to do with it. Since there has never been a free market and most likely never will be, the free market has nothing to do with anything in history or reality.

 

He does on occasion point the finger at the true culprits, the owners. But he misses the point when he blames the state. Yes, the owners use the state for their own purposes. But that's what the state is, a tool that is used by those who have the power to wield it. There are times when it has been used against slavery; as he pointed out the British Navy stopped the slave trade. It has been used to promote the ideals of the free market; anti trust enforcement, protection of the commons, property rights protection. It has even been used to promote the welfare of the common man over the owners; the New Deal, OSHA, minimum wage.

 

It is a mistake to view the state as a single entity with one agenda or set of interests. The state is a tool that many different classes of people wrestle for control of. If his ideal free market is ever going to come to pass, it is going to rely on the state to prevent the owners from warping the market for their own gain. By vilifying the state he's not only shooting wide of the point, he's shooting himself in the foot.

Well, of course, he does occasionally point fingers, but I believe the gist of the message was that slavery is not a racial issue, but more of a power-derived one. At least that's what I got from it. As for the facts, he puts his citations in the description box.

 

Other than that, yes, I agree with what you said. I never said otherwise, so I'm a bit surprised that you addressed your post to me

 

I think the idea that the "Free Market" alone can be the foundation of a society is incredibly naive, and I plan to elaborate why in the Ukraine thread when I get the time

I addressed you because you said that this video does not have much anti-statism, when the whole point of the video is anti-state. Every other point that he makes is just to support his main point that it is crony capitalism, and not the free market, that is responsible for slavery.

 

While he has all the pieces, he puts them together backwards. It's not that slavery has a social cause. For the vast majority of human history, slavery was the assumed norm. It's not-slavery that has a social cause. The question isn't why did we have slave based economies, the question is why did we stop? In his zeal to equate taxation with chattel slavery (seriously, it's in the video!), he completely misses the point.

 

Yes, one of his points was that race was not a predominant factor in slavery. He's completely wrong, but that was one of his points. But he only made that point in order to support his greater point that it's all the state's fault.