- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.
At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the antidemocratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.
DrunkenAsparagus said:Slavery had as much to do with economic interest as with social interest at the time.
Democracy = tyranny of majority.
However, that is irrelevant as far as the United States is concerned. The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. Slavery was initially enshrined in our Constitution.
Why was the Civil War brought up in a slavery thread? Slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
There seems to be a lot of this gung-ho support for democracy, as if democracy is, and should be, the cornerstone of our political existence. However, perhaps we should stop to wonder if we allowed slavery because of this glorious system, not in spite of it? The heart of democracy is the equal vote. Liberty and justice have nothing to do with democracy. Our democracy allowed a majority to continue enslaving millions for the benefit of the privileged.
Democracy also allowed segregation to last for nearly a century. People got together and collectively thought it would be a good idea, so it went forth. And it continued until the majority finally wised up.
This is why I strongly believe that liberty supersedes democracy in its righteousness (or whatever wholesome word you wish to use). Liberty is more important than democracy.
I've recently made in a point in another thread which I wish to reiterate here. Why is the political left so quick to support a populist movement, where the people are strong and can induce change, but are so quick to dismiss individual freedom as anarchy? They seem to think that "the people" are strong and ambitious, but the individual is stupid and incompetent. They always warn we can't let individuals to be left to their own devices. They'll just run wild and shoot themselves in the foot. I'm not buying it.
Why was the Civil War brought up in a slavery thread? Slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
Article I said:No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
There seems to be a lot of this gung-ho support for democracy, as if democracy is, and should be, the cornerstone of our political existence. However, perhaps we should stop to wonder if we allowed slavery because of this glorious system, not in spite of it? The heart of democracy is the equal vote. Liberty and justice have nothing to do with democracy. Our democracy allowed a majority to continue enslaving millions for the benefit of the privileged.
Democracy also allowed segregation to last for nearly a century. People got together and collectively thought it would be a good idea, so it went forth. And it continued until the majority finally wised up.
This is why I strongly believe that liberty supersedes democracy in its righteousness (or whatever wholesome word you wish to use). Liberty is more important than democracy.
I've recently made in a point in another thread which I wish to reiterate here. Why is the political left so quick to support a populist movement, where the people are strong and can induce change, but are so quick to dismiss individual freedom as anarchy? They seem to think that "the people" are strong and ambitious, but the individual is stupid and incompetent. They always warn we can't let individuals to be left to their own devices. They'll just run wild and shoot themselves in the foot. I'm not buying it.
That's why I don't trust the left, or buy their ideas. They are collectivists. They abhor individualism, and are all about groups (people).Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
Get your history right.
The United States did not allow slavery because of democracy. Rather, the U.S. included slavery in order to provide a united front against European powers.
At that time, the main economic base of the rural South was through plantation agriculture, and the best way to maximize the profits of agricultural products was through labor without pay, or slavery.
See, farming (and I know this through first hand experience) requires a massive amount of manpower. It's not easy to manage the land in order to get crops to grow, harvest it, and then get the land ready to plant again. It takes a lot of work. So much work that if every person involved had to get paid the costs would be so high nobody would be able to pay for it.
This is why I really fear the energy crunch of loss of petroleum fuels.
See, the only reason why we don't have slavery now is not because of democratic ideals. Rather, it is because machine-power has replaced manpower when it comes to agricultural labor. Rather than hire a plantation full of slaves to do slow, long, break-breaking work to raise crops, a much smaller number of people can instead use tractors to do said work faster and at a more cost-effective rate - so long as fuel for the tractors remain cheap.
If it should increase so high so that farmers unable to cultivate their crops, then trust me - some form of slavery or indentured servitude will be established in order to raise that food.
After all, this is the reason why various types of slavery had been established throughout history. During the time of Sparta, for example, helots were essentially slaves who did nothing but raise crops for themselves and Sparta's citizens. Because of this dedicated caste of farmers, it freed up other social classes of Sparta to do other things beside gather essential resources - food and water and shelter. What those other classes in Sparta did with their free time was focus on warfare.
This was why Sparta was able to become professional soldiers during those ancient days - the tasks of gathering and cultivating essentials were forced upon others, giving them the chance to develop military professionalism.
Likewise, this was the basis of the system of serfdom during the age of feudalism. Serfs were tied to land, essentially enslaved farmers. Why? Because someone needed to cultivate crops for food to be eaten by themselves and the other professionals of the age. And who was given the land that the serfs were tied to?
That's right. The professional soldiers of that age: knights. In the feudal system, the king technically owned all the land of the kingdom, but he parceled it out to the warriors who served him. This gave those warriors a steady supply of food. In return, those knights were obligated to call up military forces for their liege.
So slavery has nothing to do with democracy - rather, it has to do with the undeniable fact that there will always be **** work to do only nobody likes to do it because it is hard and because the **** work that needs to be done is relied on by everybody it has to be cheap enough so that everybody can acquire it.
So no - we did not allow slavery because of democracy. Rather, the Founding Fathers chose to be united as a nation because one region of the colonies exploited slaves for agricultural labor. However, slavery was becoming less and less required because of advances in machinery - the steam engine, the cotton gin, and others. This meant that because slavery was less required for manpower, it was becoming more and more institutionalized. That is, the South didn't have slaves because they needed them but rather the South had slaves because they wanted them.
It had become so ingrained in the society of the South that even when slaves were unneeded for the manpower to cultivate crops, the South would continue to maintain the institution of slavery.
However, it could also be said that the abolition of slavery also spurred on agricultural technology - that is, because plantations could no longer use slaves, farmers and engineers were required to use their education and ingenuity to create machines that would allow fewer people to cultivate the same amount of crops, thus keeping agricultural goods low enough to be bought.
So no - we did not allow slavery because of democracy. Rather, we allowed slavery because of the Southern economy. The Southern states would not have joined the Union if slavery was abolished by the outset, and, economically speaking, that is understandable. However, if the South did not join in the United States then that would have meant that there were two major powers in North America vying for control of the continent, and that would have meant that a war between North and South would have been fought much much earlier.
However, I'm not sure if all that is the answer you were looking for with regards to your question. If that's the case, I think this one may do.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." - Winston Churchill
You make a lot of points with a lot of historical errors. I wish I could respond in more depth, but I haven't the time at the moment. So, you'll have to forgive the shorter response (thanks for the thoughtful post, though).
First, you seem to argue that the lack of technology was the driving force behind eliminating slavery by making slavery obsolete. I do realize there were many spikes and dips in the number and importance of slaves in the South. But following the invention of the cotton gin, it is commonly noted in mainstream historical sources that the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the importance of slaves to plantation owners. The cotton gin had nothing to do with picking cotton. The cotton gin meant that more labor was needed to pick more cotton.
Though I do not deny that economics has a great deal of importance to this debate, I also believe there was a social hierarchal system in the South that was against freedom for all. They were a democracy, but a slave-owning democracy. What else besides their own voting consensus gave them the legitimacy to own people? It was the votes of the majority that made slavery legal. And it was the votes of the majority of the whole nation that allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did. Following slavery, what other human institution gave white man the power to disempower the newly freed slaves? It was rule of law according to their democratically-based government. What else, besides their consensus and the power to turn consensus into action, gave them the power to enslave and segregate others? A tyrannical majoritarian government.
I personally prefer a liberal democracy, but it absolutely must be liberal before it is a democracy.
Though I do not deny that economics has a great deal of importance to this debate, I also believe there was a social hierarchal system in the South that was against freedom for all.
It had become so ingrained in the society of the South that even when slaves were unneeded for the manpower to cultivate crops, the South would continue to maintain the institution of slavery.
Let's review the beginning of our Declaration of Independence, shall we?There seems to be a lot of this gung-ho support for democracy, as if democracy is, and should be, the cornerstone of our political existence. However, perhaps we should stop to wonder if we allowed slavery because of this glorious system, not in spite of it? The heart of democracy is the equal vote. Liberty and justice have nothing to do with democracy. Our democracy allowed a majority to continue enslaving millions for the benefit of the privileged.
Democracy also allowed segregation to last for nearly a century. People got together and collectively thought it would be a good idea, so it went forth. And it continued until the majority finally wised up.
This is why I strongly believe that liberty supersedes democracy in its righteousness (or whatever wholesome word you wish to use). Liberty is more important than democracy.
I've recently made in a point in another thread which I wish to reiterate here. Why is the political left so quick to support a populist movement, where the people are strong and can induce change, but are so quick to dismiss individual freedom as anarchy? They seem to think that "the people" are strong and ambitious, but the individual is stupid and incompetent. They always warn we can't let individuals to be left to their own devices. They'll just run wild and shoot themselves in the foot. I'm not buying it.
Why was the Civil War brought up in a slavery thread? Slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
The main reason for the war was states' rights and taxes. It was fought because the South wanted its independence form the United States due to taxation without representation. Lincoln didn't even want to get rid of slavery until about two or three years in the war, and only did so to get more support. Most southern states were in the process of doing away with slavery and a lot of the slaves were sold to the northern states. Slavery was ending all over the United States and Confederate States. It's a shame that most of the world now believes the war was over slavery.
i dont believe slavery was allowed because of democracy, Blacks were looked upon as subhumans at that time, being sold like livestock, and toiling for hours for almost nothing. i guess i could be wrong though.:shrug:
So, to answer your question, no, the U.S. did not allow slavery because of democracy - rather, the U.S. allowed slavery because of expediency. It was easier and safer for them to allow the South to retain slavery than it was to challenge the South to abolition slavery and have the colonies be divided which Europe could take advantage of.
i dont believe slavery was allowed because of democracy, Blacks were looked upon as subhumans at that time, being sold like livestock, and toiling for hours for almost nothing. i guess i could be wrong though.:shrug:
Democracy, in and of itself, does not guarantee a slave-free society. A democracy is notoriously a majoritarian tyrannical government. As I've argued numerous times on this forum, democracy killed Socrates. The heart of the democratic movement is not liberty, but about the universal equal vote. Therefore, whether or not we're discussing people who have been viewed as animals or people who have been conquered, all democracy needed to legitimize slavery at that moment was a consensus of the majority. In short, democracy is weak and often tyrannical if it is not backed by a solid commitment to individual liberty, equal justice, and a rule of law.
There's nothing special about pure, unadulterated democracy.
True but, it was simply to keep the states united in passing the constitution though. Without the clavery compromise, as well as all the compromises that went with it, it would have failed and the states would not have ratified it.Democracy = tyranny of majority.
However, that is irrelevant as far as the United States is concerned. The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. Slavery was initially enshrined in our Constitution.
There seems to be a lot of this gung-ho support for democracy, as if democracy is, and should be, the cornerstone of our political existence. However, perhaps we should stop to wonder if we allowed slavery because of this glorious system, not in spite of it? The heart of democracy is the equal vote. Liberty and justice have nothing to do with democracy. Our democracy allowed a majority to continue enslaving millions for the benefit of the privileged.
Democracy also allowed segregation to last for nearly a century. People got together and collectively thought it would be a good idea, so it went forth. And it continued until the majority finally wised up.
This is why I strongly believe that liberty supersedes democracy in its righteousness (or whatever wholesome word you wish to use). Liberty is more important than democracy.
I've recently made in a point in another thread which I wish to reiterate here. Why is the political left so quick to support a populist movement, where the people are strong and can induce change, but are so quick to dismiss individual freedom as anarchy? They seem to think that "the people" are strong and ambitious, but the individual is stupid and incompetent. They always warn we can't let individuals to be left to their own devices. They'll just run wild and shoot themselves in the foot. I'm not buying it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?