And I have the FLW also - got it after seeing it at PC's one night some years back. Inspired the essay, Titanic Trio which I was rather pleased with.

... it is indeed brilliant!! Made by today's best documentarian, Ken Burns - same guy who did the marvelous Frank Lloyd Wright film.

[click on pic to buy at Amazon]

May I inquire as to what book(s) you are reading? Since deciding to stay in America, learning its history has become something of an obsession...

It's what's called a Magnificent Obsession. This one'll never leave you.

No books. Just what I'd already picked up from 30 years within Objectivism, plus that inexhaustible reference library called the Internet, guided by the Great God Google. And a marvellous 6-hour DVD set, Liberty! The American Revolution, which pulls everything together beautifully. The story in the actors' own words (and *what* a cast of characters!!). No special effects or ought. Talking heads, and pics as appropriate. Utterly hypnotic.

John Adams on the early defeats: "In general, our generals were out-generalled."

"Our troops, faced by the British, very gallantly panicked, turned around and ran in the opposite direction."

I have a DVD on Jefferson, too. There's a part describing Tom and his wife on her deathbed, quoting Tristram Shandy to each other, making plans for the kids, part of it in fact the reportage of one of his adoring slaves ... honestly, it destroys me every time. This man didn't have a bad bone in him.

As I stated with Adams' biography: I'm only up to the point where he was at the second Continental Congress clashing with the quakers about whether to issue the Declaration.

Up until that point he seemed to have lived an exemplary life. No mention yet of any flip-flopping on the slavery issue in MA. I will keep an eye out for it.

May I inquire as to what book(s) you are reading? Since deciding to stay in America, learning its history has become something of an obsession...

No one's looking for a "complete climbdown and abject apology." Not even Mr. Jefferson, whom I consulted. I just wanted you to realise that you were directing inappropriate venom at not just one of the good guys but one of the goodest of all time!

And remember, your shining counter-example, John Adams didn't abolish slavery while president—indeed, he'd opposed emancipation in Massachusetts and generally swept the issue under the rug whenever he could.

(Amazing business, his and Jefferson's dying within hours of each other on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration!)

When I said I was done I was talking about the discussion about whether slavery was profitable and therefore immoral and whether Eli was disingenuous. 

The point you make about Jefferson is important and the discussion is therefore important. 

Jefferson did more than any other human being in history to achieve ACTUAL, TANGIBLE LIBERTY for as many individuals as possible. Equally, President Jefferson (the only individual worthy of the title, IMO), did more AGAINST slavery than any other human being in his position during his time (late 18th/early 19th century). I have no doubt the incomparable Mr. Jefferson went to his grave wondering if he had 'done enough' (I picture a thought process similar to that enacted by Liam Neeson at the end of 'Schindler's List'). I do think Jefferson could have done more in both his personal and political life to cripple the most shameful part of American history, and I've no doubt Jefferson himself felt he could have done more and regretted it.

One additional explanation for Jefferson's personal owning of slaves that to me holds the most merit is that a 'freed' slave was not necessarily *safe* even in the northern states during 18th and early 19th century America. I've read that Jefferson did not treat his slaves as slaves, arguably being even protective of them. Clearly, Jefferson is more of a positive figure in the historical record of slavery abolition than a negative one, particularly if 'graded on the curve' of his time.

And yes, Linz, many of our 'Founding Fathers' while not being perfect examples of Randian purity, nonetheless accomplished nothing short of a libertarian miracle. I think there are a few figures in revolutionary American history which are not deserving of the reverence given to them today. One such individual is Alexander Hamilton, who is staring up at me right now from the 10 dollar bill next to my keyboard. IMO he was a counter-revolutionary and I'm glad Aaron Burr shot him. The fact that Jefferson was able to accomplish ANYTHING for liberty with opponents like Hamilton is yet another American miracle.

for creating SOLO.

This is the only forum available today where I could have a debate like this one without being hounded out of my job for ever uttering such 'heretical' statements.

The problem isn't that the conventional debating chambers of today (e.g. the Universities) are fortresses of one political wing or the other. It is that you cannot express an unpopular opinion anymore without risking your livelihood.

Because SOLO keeps a complete record of the debate, people can see judge whether you were guilty of temporary foolishness or of being an unredeemable evil bastard.

I shall ponder this and find a better biography of the man so as to challenge my premises.

As to blaming Jefferson for all the ills of America: my opinion is that slavery was the 'third rail' of 18th century American politics and every politician who avoided dealing with it bears part of the burden for that. That is something I did not state explicitly at the beginning and I was unjust in not doing so.

To the manner in which I expressed my opinions. In some ways I am unrepentant for that. Jefferson's peccadillo has been explained away in a hand-waving, piss-weak manner in the history that I've read (and I've already acknowledged a rush to judgment on that). That my strongly worded comments have elicited an equally strongly worded and strongly defended riposte from you is a good thing - both for me and those who had the same concerns that I had.

But I accept that my style of arguing is flawed (part and parcel of having a quick temper and a sharp tongue) and it is something I've been trying to address - hence the deletion of the reply to Scott (aka Mr. Personallydisinterested). Which is to say that I now regret the force of the comments I leveled at Elijah, especially now that people who've met him personally have chirped up with their impressions of his real life persona.

This may not constitute the complete climbdown and abject apology that some might be expecting. The reason is that I want to revisit the history myself - better than I heretofore - rather than take your conclusions as gospel. I would hope you can understand that. Those who know me know me to be hard headed after all.

Ingersoll still amazes me since Linz put me onto him. I came across this podcast a while back which should suit those multitaskers out there, check it out. The delivery isn't the best but the content and the fact this guy has bothered to do this is awesome. Another great American
http://robertingersollpodcast.blogspot.com/

oh shucks Kelly, thx, where's the blush smiley *blush*

You asked:

Suppose for a second that you were explaining the broad sweep of American history to a child (this may cease to be a hypothetical for me sooner or later). It is not enough for me to merely reel off dates and events. I would like the history to contain the lesson for the child: this is what happens when you compromise your principles. And taking that path of least resistance is a mistake that every man, even those with the brightest and clearest minds, can make and have made. Tell me then how you would put Jefferson's inaction (in both public and personal arenas) on this most serious of matters into context - remembering that one of the root causes of the second most bitter, and most bloody, confrontation in American history (the first, in terms of its significance was the Revolution) was slavery. It is a contradiction that even a child can see and pick at. Is it really enough to say we forgive him this because he did enough? Would that not undermine the message that to enslave another is absolutely evil?

I would think that message could be imparted without heaping vitriol on Jefferson as though he invented slavery, as though he never made any effort to abolish it, and as though he were personally responsible for the Civil War decades after his death. I would think that due emphasis could be placed on Jefferson's inestimable achievements—most crucially, his authorship of the most important document in human history, and his stewardship of the most important development in human history, the separation of church and state. [Not forgetting his wine cellar! :-)]

In Virginia, "heresy" was a capital offence. It took him 10 years to do it, but Jefferson overturned that deplorable state of affairs. (But hey, he didn't free his slaves or abolish slavery, you know! Yeah, yeah, he banned the importation of slaves, and was reviled as an "emancipationist," but you know us, it's all or nothing!)

It's important not to be a Garden of Eden historian who tacitly assumes and proceeds as though there was a time when everything was perfect, that man then fell ... and woe betide anyone who tried to restore the Garden, but not 100% to its original pristine state. One man cannot be expected to smite every evil, smugness of hindsight notwithstanding. We inch forward, if at all. Occasionally someone catapults us into a giant leap. Jefferson was one such. Were I telling a child the story of mankind, Jefferson would have pride of place among the good guys.

Objectivists are not intrinsicists. The evil nature of enslaving another was something men had to figure out. It wasn't a truth emblazoned on the sky since Day One of Creation. But it sure as hell got worldwide attention with the Declaration.

Linz

PS—Here's one for the Jefferson-bashers: should he have forced the issue in 1776 and insisted the original draft, citing slavery as one of the King's "abuses and usurpations," be ratified "as is"? Meaning, it wouldn't be ratified?

Suppose for a second that you were explaining the broad sweep of American history to a child (this may cease to be a hypothetical for me sooner or later).

It is not enough for me to merely reel off dates and events. I would like the history to contain the lesson for the child: this is what happens when you compromise your principles. And taking that path of least resistance is a mistake that every man, even those with the brightest and clearest minds, can make and have made.

Tell me then how you would put Jefferson's inaction (in both public and personal arenas) on this most serious of matters into context - remembering that one of the root causes of the second most bitter, and most bloody, confrontation in American history (the first, in terms of its significance was the Revolution) was slavery. It is a contradiction that even a child can see and pick at.

Is it really enough to say we forgive him this because he did enough? Would that not undermine the message that to enslave another is absolutely evil?

Liz's comment is a bit gnomic:

PS. I think you [Lindsay] did the right thing in removing Elijah.

Does this refer, Liz, only to Elijah's removal from SOLO staff?

WSS

PS -- Apologies for not delving deeper. Elijah slagged off Jon Coster in this thread, and Lindsay announced Elijah's involuntary departure with this comment:

.... you're outta here. Eli, this makes me really sad. But what you just posted about Coster was rotten. ROTTEN. We've extended you every courtesy and benefit of the doubt, but it's now clear you didn't merit it.

This is not moderation, as for Giles—it's the full boot.

Well done, Lindsay.

My argument is simple. Jefferson had the opportunity at least in his private life to rid himself of slavery. He had the means but lacked the will. I called him immoral for it.

If you find fault in my argument Have at it.

I do not fear being proved to be mistaken and I certainly don't know everything.

Perhaps I am guilty of using the wrong French farewell. If so, I'm sorry.

I too have been reading about the Revolution. In the past year I have visited the battlefields at Saratoga and Ticonderoga. All the while listening to David McCullough's 1776. Wresting America from the British was indeed a magnificent feat - miraculous even.

But in the same trip I also spent two days wandering through the Gettysburg battlefield and cemetery. I live in Kansas, a state forged to break the dead-lock in Washington between the Slave holders and the abolitionists. Slavery is not an insignificant issue in America's history.

Jefferson may indeed have done enough in his political life.
I'll concede that I was wrong to make an adverse moral judgment of him on that point .

However, I stand by pointing out the contradiction. By neglecting the issue, they did sow the seeds of the bloodshed and racism that plagued their children and their children's children. Its a contradiction that is played down in conservative quarters. There are those who would make Jefferson out to be John Galt.

This comment, by talk radio host Michael Graham, absolving American General Francis Marion (The Swamp Fox) from owning slaves: "Was Francis Marion a slave owner? Was he a determined and dangerous warrior? Did he commit acts in an 18th-century war that we would consider atrocious in the current world of peace and political correctness? As another great American film hero might say: "You damn right." That's what made him a hero, 200 years ago and today."

Note how the fact that slavery was beginning to be challenged in the 18th Century is brushed under the table. To point this out is 'current world' political correctness.
This was what Scott et al. have accused me of and that pissed me off.

If I am guilty of anything, it is of down-playing the difficulties Jefferson faced getting anything done in politics and of my usual level of bombast -- hysteria if you prefer.

But I still cannot reconcile an intellectual giant like Jefferson keeping slaves even after America was established and he was in his dottage.

It is said that he had debts. I believe (but have yet to prove) that he had the assets to pay them.

I use John Adams as an example because there was a man of substance like Jefferson. Like Jefferson he was a lawyer, land-owner, gentleman farmer, wealthy and as wise. He made his fortune without relying on slavery and strove to live without debts as a matter of principle. As an example of what could be done, in that time in that place, Adams is perfect.

So no, in that light, I'm not convinced that Jefferson (as Scott put it) "did what he could." Hence my conclusion.

You quote Rand on von Mises. I wonder if she would have forgiven von Mises for a sin on the scale of owning slaves? Or is it just that I'm overplaying how evil slavery is?

About sums up this whole debacle.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

"I create nothing, I got owned"

Looking forward to a hopeful eventual Jefferson thread

I create nothing, I own slaves..

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

Yes, I'm an old fool, but I do have glasses, and I distinctly saw you say "au revoir." Glad you didn't flounce in the end.

Anyway, I'm not claiming for an instant that Jefferson was lily-white on the matter of slavery. He knew the arguments, he knew that slavery was an abomination utterly inconsistent with his stated ideals, and he knew that he'd acted but fitfully to abolish it. In the matter of the Declaration, he dropped the anti-slavery bits to get the Declaration ratified. In his personal life, he kept his slaves on because he was in debt. No one's denying that, or claiming it was noble.

But here's the deal. I for one do not demand of historical super-mega-giants that they be perfect in every respect, that they have no inconsistencies, that they be John Galt. Ayn Rand, scathing of Ludwig von Mises in private, and asked why she didn't go after him in public, said: "Leave him alone. He's done enough."

Same goes in spades for Jefferson. He did more than enough. Way, way more than enough.

As it happens, I've been quite immersed in the Declaration and the War these last few days. It's very hard to believe such human beings as all the Founding Fathers actually existed. And kept the faith, through their own mutual animosities(!), the incompetence of politicians, the seemingly terminal military setbacks, the dreadful conditions in which the patriots had to fight, the rag-tag nature of an American volunteer army fighting against the full might of the British ... all for a "mere" idea. It was truly the stuff of an Ayn Rand novel. But those guys were real ... and so was the "mere" idea for which they were prepared to die. Know what? I forgive every last one of them every last shortcoming. I am speechless with admiration for all of them, Jefferson included.

Linz

"Liz - no, Disin is not me. I'd only come on as someone else for comedic purposes, e,g. Karl Marx. Anything serious I have to say I say it myself, up front, in your face. Surely you know that by now?!"

Yes. I was mistaken.
Apologies,
Liz

PS. I think you did the right thing in removing Elijah.

The other bloke declared that he was done. I was merely wishing him bon voyage - politely for once, lest my barbs be deemed hysterical!

And I look forward to someone defending Jefferson. Reconciling his owning of slaves with is service to liberty is something I've been unable to do - hence my conclusion.

I would like to correct something that Scott accused me of:

"I would only point out that I'm not judging Jefferson by 20th Century morality. I'm judging him by the standards of the late 18th Century and early 19th Century - when slavery was abolished in England and he was in the White House.

Fully twenty years between the time Britain abolished the slave trade and Jefferson's death. And through out that time he owned slaves.

I very much doubt that Jefferson can claim ignorance of the whole affair. I believe that William Wilberforce and he communicated by letter more than once. I doubt they were discussing cricket, but in the interests of fairness, when I acquire copies I shall check.

In any event he was reckoned to be one of the most well-read men in the world. I would be dumbstruck if he was unaware of the arguments made and the evidence presented in the English Parliament against slavery. Surely no one is claiming that he was too dim to understand them or too heartless to be moved by them."

So there is the final brick in my argument.

Linz, have at it. If I'm wrong, I'll happily concede. Flaming Jefferson is not something done lightly.

But you'll have to address how I'm dropping context by calling Jefferson on not addressing slavery in EITHER his public or his private life. I'll accept that compromises had to be made in public office - especially given the turbulent times and the fact they had to blueprint to work from. But Jefferson had full dominion over his own affairs...

At least it will be a discussion free from that troll Brendon. I assume that because we won't be discussing the nature of cabbages, he won't feel the need to defend his kind.

Put it back up.

Jefferson's rep is tougher than this.

Robert, your views on Jefferson haven't gone unchallenged--at least be me--because they're unchallengeable, it's because you obviously haven't finished saying your piece.

Don't turn into a flouncer. Become one of those Yank sissies already? Wot next—counselling?

At least hang around till I say something more substantial about Jefferson, which I intend to do presently. And don't take your cue from John Adams.

And a great admirer of Jefferson. Kept a sense of perspective.

Liz - no, Disin is not me. I'd only come on as someone else for comedic purposes, e,g. Karl Marx. Anything serious I have to say I say it myself, up front, in your face. Surely you know that by now?!

I'll just delete this. According to Linz, I'm being hysterical. So I'll can the tirade and bid you au revoir instead.

I'd like to say that I'm sorry that my expressing low opinion of TJ has offended you. Only I can't bring myself to do so. You see the problem is your thin skin, rather than my strident expression of an honestly held (and as yet unchallenged) opinion.

Slavery has destroyed every nation that has gone down to death. It caused the last vestige of Grecian civilization to disappear forever, and it caused Rome to fall with a crash that shook the world. After the disappearance of slavery in its grossest forms in Europe, Gonzales pointed out to his countrymen, the Portuguese, the immense profits that they could make by stealing Africans, and thus commenced the modern slave trade -- that aggregation of all horror -- that infinite of all cruelty, prosecuted only by demons, and defended only by fiends. And yet the slave trade has been defended and sustained by every civilized nation, and by each and all has been baptized "Legitimate commerce," in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

What a giant Ingersoll was...read the whole thing here and for good measure why not read all his stuff here

If I were selling it I would have offered a money back guarantee.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

I think Personallydisin... is Linz ... disin.

Slavery was profitable and is profitable.  Anyone who disagrees is required to provide tangible evidense to the contrary.

I think attacking Jefferson is way out of line.  You can't judge an 18th century man by 21st century standards. 

If Jefferson had freed his slaves, he would have removed himself from eligibility to run for political office because he would no longer have been considered a personally disinterested gentleman.  The men who ruled our country till Jackson believed that the country must be ruled by well educated men who didn't have to worry about their own financial interests (ok, gross generalization but on the whole accurate).  The idea was that people who are not financially secure are susceptible to corruption and bribery.  Hmmm, I think they had a point. 

Jefferson did what he could.  Imagine for a minute the world he lived in, and how much he changed it.  He knew what he was doing.  Perhaps he could have ended slavery if he had played his cards, or maybe he would have destroyed the fragile union that was still largely an experiment.  I agree that compromise with evil yields evil...but how much evil do we all accept in order to support ourselves in prominence and comfort? We can wish the world different all we want, but work is required for it to change.  We can't work for change if we drop out of our current society. 

Jon Coster, I think I love you.

Hi there Callum, excellent work on your essay. I'm impressed by your ability to communicate your understanding of issues and wish I had that skill at your age. Perhaps at my age also Good luck with your essay.

I think this quote from John Galt is quite relevant to the slavery debate: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." What else needs to be said? Enslaving someone is an initiation of force. I guess everything must be debated.

Was just thinking, have you seen the movie 300? I loved it. At that time the wonderful greeks also had slaves. Not such a wonderful thought, though I guess it did free up time for their great men. Yes men. Not women, as they seem to have been treated pretty much as slaves also. In this day, by the work of the producers we have many wonderful devices to free us from manual labour and enable more productive pursuits. Why would any advocate slavery in this day and age when you can trade for the best of someones productive time & skill.
I don't think the Persians had slaves under Darius?

also thanks for reminding me, I've got to watch that film about William Wilberforce. People need to be reminded of the important values English Liberalism actually gave to this world. Is it just not sexy enough?? Does the story need a hiphop soundtrack?

... excuse me but if you are coming here Callum, you are obviously open to adult conversation. Good and Bad...

I've tried not to buy into the attention seeking trollfest whore that is Elijah. It's probably a fault but it takes a lot to get me truly riled as I figure most seeming racists/bigots are just ignorant and scared and/or are just reacting by mouthing off. Like a child it's usually better not to play along with them. Things have changed and it seems people who are not involved in this site are questioning how I could be associated with him. So I must make it clear. I think you are an utter scumbag maggot Elijah. You are the reason I wont attend Solo gatherings and the reason most of New Zealand hate Aucklanders . I actually thought you were a joke, a straw man, a made-up character placed here just to rark everyone up. It looks like this is not the case as I'm also sure I've seen you round and about in cafes etc.

Calling black people negroes, this bullshit about slavery, calling for ethnic cleansing of my race amongst others, along with the rest of your endless dribble sickens me. You're the most despicable person I've never met, I hope to keep it that way and that my good friends and family never meet you. Don't get me wrong, like most good people I like nasty humour, the well delivered bad joke - it's just that you're not funny at all. Having you on this site sickens me.

I've met some rather wealthy people though none of them are like you. They wouldn't bother acting like that. You've shared some trading secrets, fine. New Zealand isn't the place for you, this is a place created from those trying to escape dead traditions and hatreds and is still crafting a compelling future. Actually why don't you fuck off to Tonga while it's still a Constitutional Monarchy. A tubby little white maggot like you and a fat brown slug like the current King of Tonga out to get on marvelously can give yourselves fancy hats & medals, wank off all over each other until the good people of Tonga finally have enough, lop your heads off and stick you in an umu....
Oh gosh am I being silly, getting carried away?, most definitely. There really are many, better things I should be doing with my time. Eat shit and die you douche bag!

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Dont you get it that above all, Objectivism is most concerned with the protection of individual rights from those who choose to initiate force on others.

For an Objectivist, "mans life" and all the rights an individual needs in order to sustain it constitutes the standard of value. Thus both the acts of "trading with" or "owning" another individual's life without his consent are gross violations of mans life, the ultimate standard of value for a rational ethics.

Surely you cannot expect to substitute "mans life" with "profitability" as the standard of value, and expect to get away with it here on SOLO, no matter how damned nice you are as a person.

Stop this shit now, it's wearing thin already. To call slave trading "a rather undignified acivity" is tantamount to way more than flippant appeasement.

From OPAR, "the good"

An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil."

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

...and it should be salutary to those who appear to be intent on twisting themselves into knots simply to avoid the necessity of calling a spade a spade.

"The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life …"

Your position, that profit is the basis of morality, and hence the basis that slavery is bad, means that slavery if profitable would be morally good. Because you have dismissed anything but profit as a moral basis, and this is the point that I'm driving at, slavery only becomes bad when it is unprofitable.

Because profit is not a defining component of slavery, slavery can potentially be either [of course it can't be both... I need to lern to engrish!] profitable or unprofitable. So to actually oppose slavery you need an opposition to one of it's defining components, namely the initiation of force. Slavery cannot be slavery without force of some kind. Slavery without force is either kinky role playing or altruism.

should clarify something...

I have not been talking about 'slave trading' ..(the act of filling up a ship in Africa and transporting those chaps to America and selling them)...but rather, 'slave owning' (the act of purchasing slaves and having them work your land)

I have not studied, and have no idea about, the economics of slave trading...whether it was profitable or not.

I am talking about 'slave owning'...which is not profitable, and never really was.

My only comment on 'slave trading' is it seems a rather undignified activity...gosh.

"I create nothing. I own"

Is Elijah a capitilo-anarchist? No need for any laws against the use of force, the market will take care of it.

Afterall, if a chap is hell-bent on having slaves... the costs of doing so [his self interest] will make him stop, rather than simply having a law against it (which he has already decided to break)

Leonid
there are another two arguments against slavery
1.Slavery is forced labor and as such cannot be creative.No one cannot invent any thing on the gun point or under the threat of lash.Mind simply cannot work under coersion.Therefore slave society is necessarily at a standstill.
2.Slave cannot pursue any values.Nothing belongs to him,even his very life is a property of his master.But master is also a parasite,second hander who is totaly depens on his slaves.If slaves rebel and stop to work their master is valueless.Man may achieve values only when he acts within his inallienable rights.Therefore slave society is stagnant, valueless and incompatible with capitalism.No profit is possible in such a society in the long run since profit means creation of the new wealth and that is possible only via creativity.Slave masters simply accumulated loot as any robber or bandit.This is hardly could be called a profit.Slavery is immoral because is incompatible with man's existence qua man-both slaves and masters.

But slavery was once profitable, and it may be again. Your position, that profit is the basis of morality, and hence the basis that slavery is bad, means that slavery when it was profitable was morally good and should it become profitable again it will be morally good once more. Because you have dismissed anything but profit as a moral basis, and this is the point that I'm driving at, slavery only becomes bad when it is unprofitable.

Because profit is not a defining component of slavery, slavery can potentially be both profitable and unprofitable. So to actually oppose slavery you need an opposition to one of it's defining components, namely the initiation of force. Slavery cannot be slavery without force of some kind. Slavery without force is either kinky role playing or altruism.

Slip, sliding again. The morality of slavery, of owning another person against their consent, and drug use, are related how, again?

And re your reply to Lance, the immorality is in also holding a position whereby you say rather than feeling it [slavery] is wrong because one group of people are owned by another."

So to Paul's point, do you 'feel' it is actually wrong to 'own' another person, and that, possibly, the repugnance of this should draw a deeper wound than any economic argument?

You have said "..you've left yourself in a position where slavery is a morally acceptable practice so long as it is profitable...

Actually, what I was saying was more a case of 'financial considerations will prevent slavery from taking place'.

Afterall, if a chap is hell-bent on having slaves... the costs of doing so [his self interest] will make him stop, rather than simply having a law against it (which he has already decided to break)

"I create nothing. I own"

You're still missing the point Elijah. There's been no real argument that economic considerations aren't useful or necessary, but whether you realise it or not, by pooh poohing such 'feelings' about ideas such as individual sovereignty, liberty, non initiation of force, you've left yourself in a position where slavery is a morally acceptable practice so long as it is profitable. God, you even seemed to be suggesting that those Objectivist ideals were part of your socialist programming in schools conspiracy!

I have an actual 'reason' for opposing slavery..(reduced profits)...rather than an undefined "we all learnt in school that slavery was bad and it is wrong to own other people".

Frankly the idea that it had become unprofitable and slave owners themselves had been part of the abolition movement for that very reason is fascinating.

I am convinced that Abraham Lincoln was financed and encouraged, not by 'liberals' of his day...but by a cabal of Southern Plantation Owners

And Dinther, I didn't find that offensive, I said it "ruffled my ickle sensibilities", I consider it a bad taste joke is all, considering the absolute heroes such as William Lloyd Garrison that were involved in the abolition movement. But that's all it is, a bad taste joke, that's all I read it as, beyond that I really don't care that it was said.

disagree Mark.

I think it is very moral to have financial considerations in mind when deciding something...and financial considerations makes it voluntary.

Read the example I gave on Tuesday about drugs trafficking...and why a supposedly lucrative business is actually quite the opposite, and why anyone with half a brain should not engage in that business.

It is a libertarian policy that 'hard' drugs should be legal.

I know of, and have chatted with, a number of libertarian types who have a problem with this ideal because of addiction that results from drug taking, and risks of a drug overdose.

As I said the other day, I do not care how many people are 'junkies' ...they knew exactly what they were getting into ...(I especially have no concern for school children who become addicts having just listened to a teacher drone on during a 'drug education' class at school, and then go out and try something and get 'hooked')

I think saying to the the average drug trafficker... "You are risking a 15 year prison sentence, or being shot, or being 'ripped off' and what a misery your life must be with constant police attention" ..would be more effective than any tug on the heart strings nonsense such as... "Look what you have done! you have ruined countless lives with your evil, greedy activities".

Appealing to self interest is always the best course of action.

"I create nothing. I own"

That I stood up for Elijah's initial statement which I still believe is without anything you could take offence to. I still stand by that. I also note that you did not get involved until after Elijah tried to hang himself

"Slavery is 'wrong' (in my opinion).. because it is bad for business and ties up capital in slave ownership, rather than feeling it is wrong because one group of people are owned by another."

I don't support Elijah in the second half of that statement but without engaging in word splitting I wonder what he means by "feeling it's wrong"

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

"I believe the world is an ABSOLUTELY BETTER PLACE because of Mr. Jefferson, however, he could have been far better."

Absolutely! No question. He did many great things.

But he left something as abhorrent and malignant as slavery unmolested in both his private life (over which he had complete dominion) and his public one. And if you judge the whole man, as I have tried to do, you must weigh both his achievements and his failures.

As I see it, pragmatism, in equal measure with nihilism, will be the downfall of the West unless it is recognized and excoriated in whom ever and where ever it resides.

There are three reasons why he came to mind in the first place.

(1) Listening to talk-back here in the States, it seems to me that many conservative commentators have raised the founding fathers to sainthood. Always it's "that's not what the founding fathers would have done." Well they weren't bloody perfect and people need to continue on past their towering achievements and consider their failures, omissions and pitfalls if the USA is to become 'that shining tower on the hill!'

(2) I'm in the car a lot and I'm listening to an audio-book biography of John Adams. Many of Adams' convictions stand in so stark a contrast to Jefferson's that it's like night and day. I'm only up to the account of the period where the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence. I hope Adams at 38 continues on as he started!

(3) Jefferson could, without any more effort and learning, have done so much better. He was blessed with that much talent.

... I do judge Elijah and I think he doesn't overstep the mark. ... Nowhere did [he] say that the economic reason [against slavery] is the only one. Even if that were the only reason I'd argue that you may not judge him on the economic reason alone.

Maybe Elijah is willing to provide you with more reasons why he is against slavery.

Even when Elijah is given only the smallest lengths of rope, he still manages to turn it into a dapper necktie and hang himself with it, because he doesn't appear, through his writings, to have a moral/thinking bone in his body.

Example, even if he does not state that the economic reason against slavery is the only one, that is irrelevant, because he says the following - directly quoted from Elijah:

Slavery is 'wrong' (in my opinion).. because it is bad for business and ties up capital in slave ownership, rather than feeling it is wrong because one group of people are owned by another.

The last part of this sentence, in bold, damns him absolutely. It is precisely that reason, one human initiating force and 'owning' another person, that makes slavery so evil.

...I appreciate so few of my country's founding fathers that it saddens me to say I agree with your derision of my beloved President Jefferson at least in principle: the guy failed his own moral and intillectual integrity by not making a stronger stand against an institution he knew to be evil. I believe the world is an ABSOLUTELY BETTER PLACE because of Mr. Jefferson, however, he could have been far better.

In fact, Jefferson's failure to stand strong against slavery when he had the chance has IMO led to the domino effect of the successive departure from his libertarian ideas in the centuries after his administration. It's why we have the mobocracy today and why I bitterly call my country the "United Police States".

I go all Homer Simpson on that second quote but I fully agree on the first one.  I do judge Elijah and I think he doesn't overstep the mark.

If I understand you correctly, you state that one of his reasons against slavery must be a moral one as it is the moral reason that defines him as good or evil.

We both agree that his economic reason is not a moral one so why would you then judge Elijah as evil based on it? Nowhere did it say that the economic reason is the only one. Even if that were the only reason I'd argue that you may not judge him on the economic reason alone.

Maybe Elijah is willing to provide you with more reasons why he is against slavery. If I were him I'd refuse to provide those just for kicks. 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Has it occurred to you that a person can have more than one reason to be against slavery?

Most certainly, however one of those reasons must always be the moral repudiation of such a practice, as it is that moral repugnance that defines 'you' as good or evil, and to be 'good' the Objectivist should be prepared to judge Elijah on the beliefs he states, which are in this instance morally reprehensible. [Just about ran out of 'r' words there.]

Now, just to press all your buttons, a quote from Rand:

"The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life …"

And talking about morality, again:

"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man.

Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work."

I suspect Elijah does much productive work, however, his comments constantly indicate a lack of the 'thinking' component, integral as it is to morality, which is responsible for his complete lack of morality regarding the slavery issue in repudiating it on only economic grounds.

"my ickle sensibilities were ruffled when he joked that it was perhaps the slave owners who petitioned Lincoln for abolition"

And why would that be offensive Lance? I consider economical pressures far more likely than a sudden moral insight after 300 years of slavery. Let's face it, when business is slow you can fire half your staff and mothball your machines but you can't mothball your slaves? So abolishing slavery sounds like a pretty good way to solve that problem.

Has it occured to you that a person can have more than one reason to be against slavery?

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Elijah has only said he is against slavery. He gave a crap reason though. I readily inferred and pointed out to him that his reasoning meant that profitable slavery was good.
If Elijah unequivocally stated that profitable slavery is acceptable, then yes I'd be slamming his ideas and him. He hasn't though, so I keep pointing out to him that his reason for rejecting slavery as morally bad could easily be turned into a reason for accepting it as morally good. It seems to require constant repetition and the F word in capital letters to make a point though.

"The thing is I'm holding out that Elijah is not meaning what he says (a lesser sin than actually meaning that rubbish)..."

Are you serious? Who would say things which are vicious and evil, pretending--and only to themselves--that they mean it? Allowing others, in good faith, to take them at their word? That's far more despicable than saying what you actually believe, no matter how twisted!

And *that's* the meaning of Rand's admonition.

"are you an Objectivist?"

No, still learning.

I stand by that though. I've constantly pointed out to Elijah the consequences of his 'profit is the basis of morality' theory. I've shown the flaws and challenged him to assert it or admit mistake. He has evaded doing so and has disappeared however.

The thing is I'm holding out that Elijah is not meaning what he says (a lesser sin than actually meaning that rubbish), mostly because I cannot reconcile a pro profitable slavery (which can be inferred from his statements) Elijah, with the Elijah I have got to know off the boards.

...are you an Objectivist?

"...but not to consider them an attack on HIM, just the tosh he is spouting."

The meaning of Rand's seminal exclamation, "And I mean it!", is the exact opposite of what you've just expressed. Rand would never have allowed her self-esteem to be so compromised that she would have tried to pass off the idea that a man is something other than what he espouses; that he is not responsible for what he says, and that he doesn't have an obligation to himself and to the truth to mean what he says.

And all that is required for evil to triumph is...

"I hate it when people write T. Jefferson off because of that fact."

Jefferson didn't just bloody well go along with it, he spoke against it - and extremely powerfully I might add - as it was applied to him and his pale-faced countrymen by King George.

He demonstrated a clear understanding of why slavery was wrong. He had multiple opportunities to address it BOTH in his personal and his public life and he did not.

As I said: A moral man does not consider living within his means and selling land to service debts to be more abhorrent to owning slaves.

Instead, the Union Army had to lay waste to the South in order to address the omission he and his compatriots had an opportunity to address at the very beginning.

Hate? Tell it to the ghosts in Gettysburg national cemetery. Maybe they'll be moved by your plea. I'm sure as hell not.

Did he do great things? Yes. Does that excuse him for not having the courage of his convictions - even if only in his personal affairs? Hell No!

every time Elijah has anything to say now, I think people are scanning for the flaws in his thinking...

Yep, that's healthy. Might fire his grey matter a bit more than in the past.

Let's not crucify Elijah

Hey, nothing like a good crucifixion: just ask Reed. Or, I was thinking to stick Elijah in the stocks and pillory him with cabbages and eagle drumsticks. He might learn something.

Not.

Elijah is a very detached person. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he has a clinically detached view of slavery from a capitalist's perspective.

Yes and ya know what? I really like that about Elijah, he is unafraid to talk about uncomfortable facts. If all Elijah had said was that the slave owners benefited economically from the abolition of slavery, I'd have let it lie. But, my ickle sensibilities were ruffled when he joked that it was perhaps the slave owners who petitioned Lincoln for abolition (gross blasphemy in my opinion, considering the heroic people who actually DID). Anyway, still not enough to irk me to swearing in capitals.

The kicker, was the assertion that other people's rights are none of his concern, they may not in fact exist, and that profit IS his moral basis for judging slavery as a bad thing.

Ipso facto, here is a man saying that profitable slavery was a moral and good thing, and anyone who disagreed, disagreed only because socialists had programmed them at state schools with crazy Objectivist and libertarian ideas such as "non initiation of force" and individual sovereignty. Left me rather exasperated to be honest. And not once have I attacked Elijah with any slurs or name calling. I've kept it strictly about the argument. Why? I LIKE Elijah, he's witty intelligent and bloody charming.

He knows I disagree with him on a lot of points, and my take is that he's fairly thick skinned. I've told him in private messages that when he makes outrageous statements and claims I would be fairly merciless, but not to consider them an attack on HIM, just the tosh he is spouting.

edit: At one point I did call him a "Bloody Fool".

but every time Elijah has anything to say now, I think people are scanning for the flaws in his thinking, which is a petty minded way to approach another human being.

Elijah is a very detached person. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he has a clinically detached view of slavery from a capitalist's perspective. Many, many good men went along with the evil of slavery whilst it was a feature of the West. I hate it when people write T. Jefferson off because of that fact. Let's not crucify Elijah for his objective view on this... he does actually pay his servants.

Well, in my defense Claudia, not that I need to defend myself, I did say below in reference to Elijah:

' [That said, I seem to be turning into some type of self appointed policeman, which will all too easily start bringing out the repressed Puritan in me, so I shall wander into some of the other threads for a bit ... ]

However, then an IRD auditor decided to be a prick re one of my clients, I bit, gave same auditor a piece of Objectivist philosophy, so that situation will probably go from bad to worse, when I like to have a clean slate going in to Christmas, so I got stuck into Elijah and Sandi because I was manky, but that's okay, because they both deserved it

liquid and tobacco.

Cooking? Wifey's not here, that means a liquid dinner! Maybe some reheated Chinese.

Not a highly effective measure against trolling, I've always seen it more as a good faith thing.

Elijah's an intelligent guy, bloody whiz on UK politics and finance stuff. Start him on philosophy and he offers his rather 'unique' perspective and it seems to fall apart. Maybe you are right, but he's fairly adamant about it.

what are you turning into... the Elijah police?

Lance, go and do some bloody cooking!

I don't think we'll be receiving any enlightenment from someone who wants to be referred to as "Personally Disinterested." Another walking contradiction like most of the moronic masses. At least Elijah is who he is... an unabashed, snobby Alan B'Stard (thankyou Lance) who doesn't say the fuck word without apologising for his French.

I've perused the blackwater and racism threads and am still at the same conclusion.  Elijah is disingenuous.  I could prove it by saying some really stupid things and backing them up myself.  I once convinced my entire debate club that the American colonies never should have separated from the crown, it was fun.  The guy can't possibly believe this stuff, but I guarantee you he is having a tremendous amount of fun. 

Do you honestly believe that a person could be confused when they say that southern slave owners convinced Lincoln to free the slaves?  It is ridiculous.  However, once people respond to such a statement with indignation and say things like "even if you are kidding you are out of line", it becomes hilarious. 

Mabey I'm wrong.  Mabey. 

If so, somebody that lives a little closer than 14 hours by plane should invite Elijah out for coffee (I read yall are drinking that nowadays) and attempt to help him on a personal level.  I don't see what his posts have to do with supporting or negating objectivism.

I'll see if I can figure out how to put a photo on this internets thing within 15 days...though I'm not sure how good an ID it is to prevent trolling.  I could just post a picture of a black jesus, but considering how much I look like an intellectual that should be listened to, I'll use my own likeness, but how would you know? Jeez, now I'm taking the piss.

Mark is quite right Scott. Elijah is no troll, he either really believes what he is saying (which I hesitantly doubt), or he hasn't quite thought things through (which I'm hoping). I often wonder if he isn't trying to model himself on Alan B'Stard...

Welcome aboard Scott. If I may direct your attention here

Starting today we will require that all users post a photo of themselves in their user profile. Current users will have until March 31st and all new users will be required to add a photo within their first 15 days on the site. All users who do not meet these deadlines will have their accounts blocked until a photo is volunteered.

cheers,
Lance.

Well that's a considered, reasoned assessment of Elijah's character after only, lets see, twenty two minutes on the board Scott

Unfortunately the evidence is more on the side of he is not kidding; try searching for the rascism threads.