It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Slavery Isn't Possible Without Government

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Slavery was only possible in America because government enforced it.

If there was no government, it would be nearly impossible to enslave people in a manner that put them to productive work. Slaves on the plantations were not tied to the property with shackles, they were simply put out in the fields and forced to work because they had no where to run. Government ensured they had no way to escape, not the plantation owners.

It wasn't until the north abolished slavery that the enterprise of slavery started to unravel. In fact, had the bordering northern states remained as free states, slavery would have imploded in the south all on its own without a shot being fired because slaves would have fled the plantations for freedom in the north. This is precisely what brought about the collapse of slavery in Africa.

I'd also like to take shot at the biggest war criminal of all time - Abraham Lincoln, who managed to kill more Americans than any other president in US history.


I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

-Abraham Lincoln


My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

-Abraham Lincoln

Praise Mao and may government enslave you to work for them by taking the product of your labor at gun point.



edit on 22-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Human traficking enterprises are not enforced by the government, yet they happen.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Human traficking enterprises are not enforced by the government, yet they happen.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
YOu are right on some level, but then it breaks down into semantics. Slavery can happen through force.

I would contend that it has nothing to do with governments, but everything to do with economics.

Those who have, have the ability to control those who dont. Its happened in every corner of history.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Human traficking enterprises are not enforced by the government, yet they happen.


kidnapping isn't institutionalized slavery



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
kidnapping isn't institutionalized slavery

It's still slavery.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Human traficking enterprises are not enforced by the government, yet they happen.


kidnapping isn't institutionalized slavery



And this is where it comes down to semantics. Is one not a slave unless they are commissioned as such? Or is one a slave when one is forced to servitude by another, regardless of the reason?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
YOu are right on some level, but then it breaks down into semantics. Slavery can happen through force.

I would contend that it has nothing to do with governments, but everything to do with economics.

Those who have, have the ability to control those who dont. Its happened in every corner of history.


If I go to work voluntarily for someone and they pay me a wage I voluntarily agree to work for, is that slavery?

If someone comes along and holds a gun to my head every month and then takes the product of my labor a gun point, is that slavery?

The first answer is no - the second answer is yes.

Guess which one fits the definition of the IRS?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Human traficking enterprises are not enforced by the government, yet they happen.


kidnapping isn't institutionalized slavery



And this is where it comes down to semantics. Is one not a slave unless they are commissioned as such? Or is one a slave when one is forced to servitude by another, regardless of the reason?


A slave is someone who does not own the product of their labor.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Which is why I always contend the "Civil War" didnt end anything. What it did was solidify the concept of government sanctioned slavery then, almost overnight, made us all slaves.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Which is why I always contend the "Civil War" didnt end anything. What it did was solidify the concept of government sanctioned slavery then, almost overnight, made us all slaves.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



That's right.

The government hates competition.

Especially competition in human ownership.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
YOu are right on some level, but then it breaks down into semantics. Slavery can happen through force.

I would contend that it has nothing to do with governments, but everything to do with economics.

Those who have, have the ability to control those who dont. Its happened in every corner of history.


If I go to work voluntarily for someone and they pay me a wage I voluntarily agree to work for, is that slavery?

If someone comes along and holds a gun to my head every month and then takes the product of my labor a gun point, is that slavery?

The first answer is no - the second answer is yes.

Guess which one fits the definition of the IRS?


I get your point, but you are missing mine.

When one tribe overtook another, and forced the women and men into work, was that not slavery, without a government?

You are marginalizing the word to fit your definition, and that doesnt work.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
Human traficking enterprises are not enforced by the government, yet they happen.


kidnapping isn't institutionalized slavery



And this is where it comes down to semantics. Is one not a slave unless they are commissioned as such? Or is one a slave when one is forced to servitude by another, regardless of the reason?


A slave is someone who does not own the product of their labor.



Then your IRS argument is shot. You do own the products of your labor. Or does the IRS take every penny from you?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Actually, the reason slavery " broke down " in Africa is because first, the blacks of that time were selling there own people to plantation owners in America. When slavery was abolished, it was no longer a money making scheme in Africa, so in other words they were run out of business. Had there been another potential " buyer ' of these services back in those days, slavery would have continued. But be that it may, the US was the biggest purchaser of slaves, there was no other buyer for that market.

I think the quotes you presented were used out of context. Abraham, was simply trying to identify, that it wasn't the role of the president to interfere with land ownership. Or any dealings within those land owners. Much like we see today, Congress succeeding in infringing on our rights, and implementing regulations at every turn. Abraham steered clear of that infringement because, at the time in that era, slaves ownership was the norm.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Which is why I always contend the "Civil War" didnt end anything. What it did was solidify the concept of government sanctioned slavery then, almost overnight, made us all slaves.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Well said. The civil war is now used as an indoctrination tool. "The government said slavery was bad', all-the-while forcing everyone into it under a different name.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
YOu are right on some level, but then it breaks down into semantics. Slavery can happen through force.

I would contend that it has nothing to do with governments, but everything to do with economics.

Those who have, have the ability to control those who dont. Its happened in every corner of history.


If I go to work voluntarily for someone and they pay me a wage I voluntarily agree to work for, is that slavery?

If someone comes along and holds a gun to my head every month and then takes the product of my labor a gun point, is that slavery?

The first answer is no - the second answer is yes.

Guess which one fits the definition of the IRS?


I get your point, but you are missing mine.

When one tribe overtook another, and forced the women and men into work, was that not slavery, without a government?

You are marginalizing the word to fit your definition, and that doesnt work.



I don't think so.

I think most of the world is enslaved today.

Tribes ARE governments, and if a region of tribes enforces slavery, then that is essentially the same service as a government imposing it.
edit on 22-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Actually, the reason slavery " broke down " in Africa is because first, the blacks of that time were selling there own people to plantation owners in America. When slavery was abolished, it was no longer a money making scheme in Africa, so in other words they were run out of business. Had there been another potential " buyer ' of these services back in those days, slavery would have continued. But be that it may, the US was the biggest purchaser of slaves, there was no other buyer for that market.

I think the quotes you presented were used out of context. Abraham, was simply trying to identify, that it wasn't the role of the president to interfere with land ownership. Or any dealings within those land owners. Much like we see today, Congress succeeding in infringing on our rights, and implementing regulations at every turn. Abraham steered clear of that infringement because, at the time in that era, slaves ownership was the norm.


Lincoln was a warmongering bigoted pig of a man who killed nearly a million Americans.

Institutionalized slavery in Africa continued on after the American market dried up.

The blacks were enslaving each other loooong before the white man got in on the action.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
YOu are right on some level, but then it breaks down into semantics. Slavery can happen through force.

I would contend that it has nothing to do with governments, but everything to do with economics.

Those who have, have the ability to control those who dont. Its happened in every corner of history.


If I go to work voluntarily for someone and they pay me a wage I voluntarily agree to work for, is that slavery?

If someone comes along and holds a gun to my head every month and then takes the product of my labor a gun point, is that slavery?

The first answer is no - the second answer is yes.

Guess which one fits the definition of the IRS?


I get your point, but you are missing mine.

When one tribe overtook another, and forced the women and men into work, was that not slavery, without a government?

You are marginalizing the word to fit your definition, and that doesnt work.



I don't think so.

I think most of the world is enslaved today.

Tribes ARE governments, and if a region of tribes enforces slavery, then that is essentially the same service as a government imposing it.
edit on 22-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Tribes are not, and have never been, governments. In fact, they are close to the opposite.

You are still marginalizing the word.

Again, you are marginalizing the word.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Actually, the reason slavery " broke down " in Africa is because first, the blacks of that time were selling there own people to plantation owners in America. When slavery was abolished, it was no longer a money making scheme in Africa, so in other words they were run out of business. Had there been another potential " buyer ' of these services back in those days, slavery would have continued. But be that it may, the US was the biggest purchaser of slaves, there was no other buyer for that market.

I think the quotes you presented were used out of context. Abraham, was simply trying to identify, that it wasn't the role of the president to interfere with land ownership. Or any dealings within those land owners. Much like we see today, Congress succeeding in infringing on our rights, and implementing regulations at every turn. Abraham steered clear of that infringement because, at the time in that era, slaves ownership was the norm.


Lincoln was a warmongering bigoted pig of a man who killed nearly a million Americans.

Institutionalized slavery in Africa continued on after the American market dried up.

The blacks were enslaving each other loooong before the white man got in on the action.


You must back up these statements about lincoln. How was he a war-monger?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
YOu are right on some level, but then it breaks down into semantics. Slavery can happen through force.

I would contend that it has nothing to do with governments, but everything to do with economics.

Those who have, have the ability to control those who dont. Its happened in every corner of history.


If I go to work voluntarily for someone and they pay me a wage I voluntarily agree to work for, is that slavery?

If someone comes along and holds a gun to my head every month and then takes the product of my labor a gun point, is that slavery?

The first answer is no - the second answer is yes.

Guess which one fits the definition of the IRS?


I get your point, but you are missing mine.

When one tribe overtook another, and forced the women and men into work, was that not slavery, without a government?

You are marginalizing the word to fit your definition, and that doesnt work.



I don't think so.

I think most of the world is enslaved today.

Tribes ARE governments, and if a region of tribes enforces slavery, then that is essentially the same service as a government imposing it.
edit on 22-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Tribes are not, and have never been, governments. In fact, they are close to the opposite.

You are still marginalizing the word.

Again, you are marginalizing the word.


ORLY?

I would argue that the majority of our problems in Afghanistan stem from the fact that tribal leaders do not recognize the corrupt government we installed as legitimate.

www.slate.com...

Tribal governments ARE governments in every sense of the word.

They administer justice, they arbitrate disputes, they uphold contracts, they keep the peace, etc.. etc.. etc.

If a region of tribal governments uphold slavery, that is exactly the same as if a formal government upheld and enforced slavery.

If the tribal government's reject slavery, then at least open institutionalized slavery would not be possible.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join