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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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?


Oh, I don't know.

Perhaps it has something to do with the 700,000 American's he managed to get killed?




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I hate to disagree but slavery has been around since the time humans figured out it was easier to get someone else to do the work.

Running away was solved very simply - cripple them. That is why the blacksmith god Hephaestus or Vulcan is shown as crippled.

Often tribes would steal children or wifes, a necessity to prevent inbreeding. Children of course make very good slaves because they are weak and grow up with a "mental collar" around their necks.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I hate to disagree but slavery has been around since the time humans figured out it was easier to get someone else to do the work.

Running away was solved very simply - cripple them. That is why the blacksmith god Hephaestus or Vulcan is shown as crippled.

Often tribes would steal children or wifes, a necessity to prevent inbreeding. Children of course make very good slaves because they are weak and grow up with a "mental collar" around their necks.


People can't get away with that behavior if slavery is rejected by the government.

Slavery is only possible if government protects it as an institution.

If there was no government, then slavery as an institution would not be possible.
edit on 22-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.


No, they are not. You need to look up the definition of the two things. Tribal leaders tend to consist of a counsel, not an elected or appointed body. Tribal leaders are not government.

I advise you to research tribal cultures. They did and do not administer justice, arbitrate disputes, uphold contracts(rofl, contracts in a tribal culture!?!). Tribal leaders were not the final say in what happened in the tribe.

I see you have moved to prefacing the word 'slavery' with 'institutionalized' in your posts. Again, marginalizing the word. Slavery, like war, is an act, not a declaration.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I hate to disagree but slavery has been around since the time humans figured out it was easier to get someone else to do the work.

Running away was solved very simply - cripple them. That is why the blacksmith god Hephaestus or Vulcan is shown as crippled.

Often tribes would steal children or wifes, a necessity to prevent inbreeding. Children of course make very good slaves because they are weak and grow up with a "mental collar" around their necks.


People can't get away with that behavior if slavery is rejected by the government.

Slavery is only possible if government protects it as an institution.

If there was no government, then slavery as an institution would not be possible.
edit on 22-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


So, you take governments out of it. What stops me from knocking on your door, knocking you out, dragging you to my farm and forcing you to work?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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?


Oh, I don't know.

Perhaps it has something to do with the 700,000 American's he managed to get killed?


Oh good lord. So, because he was in office when this happened, he was a war monger? And had he not gone to war, there would be no United States. But nevermind that. Fighting to save the union makes one a war monger.



This is awful, I am not even a fan of Lincoln, but you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out there on this one.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


First off, your argument doesn't have any merit.


he expressed the view that the nation would become either all slave or all free: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."


The above quote would suggest his realistic approach to government should have been visualized.

Lincoln understood war. He wasn't a warmonger per say. He understood the logistics.


Lincoln nevertheless took a realistic view of war as best prosecuted by killing the enemy.


In a time of war, he wished to have a strong command center.


Above all, he always sought a general, no matter what his politics, who would fight. He found such a general in Ulysses S. Grant, to whom he gave overall command in 1864.



Democrats accused Lincoln of being a tyrant because he proscribed civil liberties. For example, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some areas as early as Apr. 27, 1861, and throughout the nation on Sept. 24, 1862, and the administration made over 13,000 arbitrary arrests. On the other hand, Lincoln tolerated virulent criticism from the press and politicians, often restrained his commanders from overzealous arrests, and showed no real tendencies toward becoming a dictator. There was never a hint that Lincoln might postpone the election of 1864, although he feared in August of that year that he would surely lose to McClellan. Democrats exaggerated Lincoln's suppression of civil liberties, in part because wartime prosperity robbed them of economic issues and in part because Lincoln handled the slavery issue so skillfully.


Nothing needed to add, pretty self explanatory.


The Constitution protected slavery in peace, but in war, Lincoln came to believe, the commander in chief could abolish slavery as a military necessity. The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862, bore this military justification, as did all of Lincoln's racial measures, including especially his decision in the final proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, to accept blacks in the army


Sounds to me he was pretty big on freedom for all?


Lincoln's achievements--saving the Union and freeing the slaves--and his martyrdom just at the war's end assured his continuing fame. No small contribution was made by his eloquence as exemplified in the Gettysburg Address (Nov. 19, 1863), in which he defined the war as a rededication to the egalitarian ideals of the Declaration of Independence



You don't get the nick name " Honest Abe" for being a warmongering tyrant. I think you read way to many leftist books.


Lincoln vied for the U.S. Senate in 1855 but eventually threw his support to Lyman Trumbull. In 1856 he joined the newly formed Republican Party, and two years later he campaigned for the Senate against Douglas. In his speech at Springfield in acceptance of the Republican senatorial nomination (June 16, 1858) Lincoln suggested that Douglas, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, and Democratic presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan had conspired to nationalize slavery


" Abe " had joined the newly formed Republican party to go against the Liberal left in regards to slavery.
So where does your argument have merit?







posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Look captaintyinknots, if you went and bought a bunch of slaves in Africa, then took those slaves and put them to work on a poppy field in Afghanistan, if the tribal leaders of that region did not want you to have slaves, I can guarantee that you would not have those slaves for very long.

Further, if there was no government imposing on the region where you were forcing your slaves to work, you would have no way to keep them working without monitoring them 24/7.

At the first opportunity they would turn tail and haul ass.

It is only possible to have institutionalized slavery if government enforces it.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I see you are defending a bigot and a mass murderer.

Good for you.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Facts ? Proof? Have any?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Look captaintyinknots, if you went and bought a bunch of slaves in Africa, then took those slaves and put them to work on a poppy field in Afghanistan, if the tribal leaders of that region did not want you to have slaves, I can guarantee that you would not have those slaves for very long.

Further, if there was no government imposing on the region where you were forcing your slaves to work, you would have no way to keep them working without monitoring them 24/7.

At the first opportunity they would turn tail and haul ass.

It is only possible to have institutionalized slavery if government enforces it.



You are speakiing of war tribes, and yes, they are far closer to government than most. There are hundreds of types of tribal cultures out there, for the record, and because one falls into this category, doesnt mean they all do.

I would have no way to keep them working? Guns, employees, security, fences, electro-monitoring, branding......yeah, no way at all. I see you really havent thought this subject through.

I'll ask again-you take governments out of it. they no longer exist. What stops me from overpowering you, and forcing you to work for me?

NOTHING.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Facts ? Proof? Have any?


I thought his own words were good enough.

You are like the guy that would deny government was responsible for 9/11 even if Bush came out and said he did it in a live national press conference.



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

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I see you are defending a bigot and a mass murderer.

Good for you.



Back to school kiddo. You are way over your head here.

Either back up your statement, or back off it. Coming back with something like "I see you are defending a bigot and a mass murderer." is not backing yourself up.

It is quite clear you have no idea what caused the civil war, why Lincoln did what he did, and what the consequences would have been had he not.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Look captaintyinknots, if you went and bought a bunch of slaves in Africa, then took those slaves and put them to work on a poppy field in Afghanistan, if the tribal leaders of that region did not want you to have slaves, I can guarantee that you would not have those slaves for very long.

Further, if there was no government imposing on the region where you were forcing your slaves to work, you would have no way to keep them working without monitoring them 24/7.

At the first opportunity they would turn tail and haul ass.

It is only possible to have institutionalized slavery if government enforces it.



You are speakiing of war tribes, and yes, they are far closer to government than most. There are hundreds of types of tribal cultures out there, for the record, and because one falls into this category, doesnt mean they all do.

I would have no way to keep them working? Guns, employees, security, fences, electro-monitoring, branding......yeah, no way at all. I see you really havent thought this subject through.

I'll ask again-you take governments out of it. they no longer exist. What stops me from overpowering you, and forcing you to work for me?

NOTHING.


The entire point of institutionalized slavery is to make a profit.

If you have to build an entire prison complex to house your slaves you aren't going to be making much in terms of profits.

In countries that have institutionalized slavery, the slave owners do not worry about slaves running away. They don't worry about it because the slaves have no where to run to.

You mention branding.

What good is branding if there is no government agent to spot and enforce the slave brand?

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



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I see you are defending a bigot and a mass murderer.

Good for you.



Back to school kiddo. You are way over your head here.

Either back up your statement, or back off it. Coming back with something like "I see you are defending a bigot and a mass murderer." is not backing yourself up.

It is quite clear you have no idea what caused the civil war, why Lincoln did what he did, and what the consequences would have been had he not.


read OP

Then read it again.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Look captaintyinknots, if you went and bought a bunch of slaves in Africa, then took those slaves and put them to work on a poppy field in Afghanistan, if the tribal leaders of that region did not want you to have slaves, I can guarantee that you would not have those slaves for very long.

Further, if there was no government imposing on the region where you were forcing your slaves to work, you would have no way to keep them working without monitoring them 24/7.

At the first opportunity they would turn tail and haul ass.

It is only possible to have institutionalized slavery if government enforces it.



You are speakiing of war tribes, and yes, they are far closer to government than most. There are hundreds of types of tribal cultures out there, for the record, and because one falls into this category, doesnt mean they all do.

I would have no way to keep them working? Guns, employees, security, fences, electro-monitoring, branding......yeah, no way at all. I see you really havent thought this subject through.

I'll ask again-you take governments out of it. they no longer exist. What stops me from overpowering you, and forcing you to work for me?

NOTHING.


The entire point of institutionalized slavery is to make a profit.

If you have to build an entire prison complex to house your slaves you aren't going to be making much in terms of profits.

In countries that have institutionalized slavery, the slave owners do not worry about slaves running away. They don't worry about it because the slaves have no where to run to.


I spoke of one slave. Not much need for a jail, but nice exaggeration. You do enjoy taking giant leaps, dont you?

Would it not be a profit to get an extra body's worth of work every day?

I dont care what people have to worry about. Ill ask again, since you cant seem to answer it:
you take governments out of it. they no longer exist. What stops me from overpowering you, and forcing you to work for me?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


With your response, you just solidified that your a troll instigating an argument with fellow readers. I think you need to go back to re-runs of sesame street for awhile and leave the grown up talk for us big boys.

Move along~



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


If I kidnap you and force you to work at gun point for me, sure, that is a form of slavery.

However that is not institutionalized slavery.

If there was no government in the southern states to enforce slavery, the institution of slavery would have evaporated overnight.

The institution of slavery was only made possible through government enforcement.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


With your response, you just solidified that your a troll instigating an argument with fellow readers. I think you need to go back to re-runs of sesame street for awhile and leave the grown up talk for us big boys.

Move along~


Why?

Because I hate mass murdering bigots, while you don't?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I see you are defending a bigot and a mass murderer.

Good for you.



Back to school kiddo. You are way over your head here.

Either back up your statement, or back off it. Coming back with something like "I see you are defending a bigot and a mass murderer." is not backing yourself up.

It is quite clear you have no idea what caused the civil war, why Lincoln did what he did, and what the consequences would have been had he not.


read OP

Then read it again.


perhaps you ought to.

Lincoln went to war TO KEEP THE UNION TOGETHER. It had little to do with slavery. You speak of his killing 700,000 americans, but do you realize that had he not gone to war, THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS AN AMERICAN?

History.....its not just for entertainment.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join