Did we allow slavery BECAUSE of democracy, not in spite of it?

[Mensch]

How did it legitimize it?

Just because they ignored it and didn't deal with it doesn't mean that their form of government supported or encouraged it - it really just means that htey didn't feel like dealing with it.

Our government made, imposed, and interpreted laws that directly supported the institution of slavery.

 

[Mensch]

Ahh, I misunderstood. Actually, the Indian economy is starting to boom and is in the early stages of becoming a modern economy. There will be fits and starts and always a terrible distribution of wealth as there are in the early stages of these things, but all of that will probably smooth out in 30 or 40 years or at least make some serious headway.

From Wikipedia:

India's economy is the eleventh largest in the world by nominal GDP[1] and the fourth largest by purchasing power parity (PPP).[1] The country's per capita GDP (PPP) is $3,176 (IMF, 127th) in 2009.[1] Following strong economic reforms from the socialist inspired economy of a post-independence Indian nation, the country began to develop a fast-paced economic growth, as free market principles were initiated in 1990 for international competition and foreign investment.[9] Economists predict that by 2020, India will be among the leading economies of the world.[10]

India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was characterised by extensive regulation, protectionism, public ownership, pervasive corruption and slow growth.[11][12][13] Since 1991, continuing economic liberalisation has moved the country toward a market-based economy.[11][12] A revival of economic reforms and better economic policy in first decade of the 21st century accelerated India's economic growth rate. In recent years, Indian cities have continued to liberalize business regulations.[6] By 2008, India had established itself as the world's second-fastest growing major economy.[14]

Now, was it the social democracy based on protectionism, public ownership, and extensive regulation that caused India's economy to grow, or was it the liberalization of trade that accelerated economic growth?

If free-market principles can improve the economies of China, India, and various other countries after decades of a stagnant, socialist government, then why can't we use the same principles to improve our own economy?

 

[other]

And there is a difference between many and most and a majority. You can not deny that slavery was accepted in the US in 1776 and before just as it was accepted in Europe at the time. That there was a minority who were against it, does not mean that George Washington did not have slaves as did most of his people.

Moving the goalposts? I never argued that the "majority" opposed slavery now did I? I corrected your erroneous statement that "they didn't know any better."

Again debatable. While you are correct that the Athenian democracy had no king or similar (Iyatollah is spelled wrong and can not be compared to a king.. Pope maybe), but it was still only for the very few.

The ayatollah can be compared to a king, moreso than a pope. Iran is a theocracy, and he has power over domestic policy in Iran because they have religious law. What nation does the pope control domestic policy in exactly? And besides, regarding my earlier point, Athens was most definitely a democracy--Its where we got the name for that form of government. Perfect egalitarianism is not an essential characteristic of democracy.

A majority of the people in the Athenian "democracy" had no rights and were either slaves or defacto slaves.

so what? Democracies can, and did, have slaves. see above.

No, but the Saudi's do get to vote, just as the American's of 1776 and just like the Athenian's of ancient Athens. It is a limited amount of people out of the population, but they do get to vote and voting is one of the core elements of a democracy.

right, so having any election automatically makes a country a democracy. You're actually going to argue that?

So what. You claimed that because it was a hereditary monarchy then it was not a democracy. That is simply not true. What is key is who can vote and the strength of the democratic institutional base and system. Saudi Arabia's is limited and lacking on all fronts, but like it or not it is still a very basic democracy not unlike the US of 1776.

yeah, a basic democracy ruled by a line of hereditary kings. :doh

Well yes and no. In my home country it is very rare that there is any political "dynasty" in any party. There has been a few of course but none of them ever became leaders of the country.

They are not kings, so what's your point anyway?

But saying that a political dynasty is not much different than a hereditary succession in many ways especially in the way that they are treated if they do get into power.

what are you getting at?

Was never in solely "American context".

Right. I was. I adjusted where necessary.

Yes it can. Despite having the protestant reformation the Christian areas of the world kept women and slaves. Despite the protestant reformation, the slave trade broke out and protestant countries "colonised" Africa.

that doesn't mean that the church was the primary driving force behind the slave trade (which didn't arise until after the middle ages) and also doesn't mean the church can be treated as a monolithic entity with unchanging policies from 325 until 2010.

Again was not meant as "American context" only. What may be relevant in the US is not relevant in other parts of the world.

and vice versa. The topic of this thread was targeted toward the US.

The US was "late" in giving women the vote in contrast to many nations, and it was also early compared to others. Making an excuse that "we freed the slaves" is a lame.. women's suffrage was not on the radar before the late 1800s when areas of the world started to give women suffrage.

what's lame is the ridiculous strawman you just threw out. Did you misunderstand what I wrote earlier? And please, as I mentioned, women's rights was on the radar, their was a national convention in America in 1848.

Now if you look at the list of when women got suffrage in various countries, a clear pattern emerges. Catholic countries were for the most part later than non Catholic countries. Some Catholic countries that were "very Catholic" were much much later than the US.. France for example was in 1944 (yes they were much more religious back in the day than now), Italy in 1946 (home of the Catholic Church), and Spain in 1931. Muslim countries of course dont have it or were even later in giving women suffrage.

Basically, religion has had a profound impact on things we take for granted today, from slavery to women's suffrage to gay rights and so on.

way off topic now. but I don't disagree. As I mentioned earlier, the churches spearheaded both the women's rights as well as the abolitionist movements here in america.

 

[Slartibartfast]

From Wikipedia:



Now, was it the social democracy based on protectionism, public ownership, and extensive regulation that caused India's economy to grow, or was it the liberalization of trade that accelerated economic growth?

If free-market principles can improve the economies of China, India, and various other countries after decades of a stagnant, socialist government, then why can't we use the same principles to improve our own economy?

So you don't believe that democratically elected leaders changed trade policies responsible for the recent economic growth? Do you somehow think that democracy and capitalism are somehow opposed to each other?

If not, than I do not understand your perspective.

 

[Mensch]

So you don't believe that democratically elected leaders changed trade policies responsible for the recent economic growth? Do you somehow think that democracy and capitalism are somehow opposed to each other?

If not, than I do not understand your perspective.

Like I said, democracy relies on the whims of the majority. The majority today believes liberal policies are the best policies. But there doesn't appear to be any guarantees. The majority once believed that segregation laws were acceptable in this country. It wasn't until the people rioted, marched, and demonstrated that we finally were able to sway the majority.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Like I said, democracy relies on the whims of the majority. The majority today believes liberal policies are the best policies. But there doesn't appear to be any guarantees. The majority once believed that segregation laws were acceptable in this country. It wasn't until the people rioted, marched, and demonstrated that we finally were able to sway the majority.

I think in some ways it does rely on whims, but I cannot think of a case where things did not become more liberalized over time. Maybe you can?

 

[Mensch]

I think in some ways it does rely on whims, but I cannot think of a case where things did not become more liberalized over time. Maybe you can?

That's your theory and it could very well be true. Democracy may lead to liberalization of rights if given the right amount of time and proper care. I sympathize with such theory.

 

[Mach]

I think in some ways it does rely on whims, but I cannot think of a case where things did not become more liberalized over time. Maybe you can?

liberalized as in socialized (welfare, government services, etc), or liberalized as in libertarianized? I'm genuinely not sure, especially given Elijah's response. If Elijah believes that proper care is necessary to over time create a more socialized nation, then I'm confused about what "proper care means", or that Elijah has changed.

To Elijah - I agree, liberty is more righteous than democracy. Democracy is terrible, but offered an improvement over other systems for our culture. You see us attempting to institute democracy in other less developed nations and it's a travesty. Democracy in and of itself doesn't appear to be inherently good or bad, from a philosophical point of view, the way liberty can be argued to be so. Is your point that we should herald liberty a lot more than we do democracy? Maybe.

 

[Mensch]

liberalized as in socialized (welfare, government services, etc), or liberalized as in libertarianized? I'm genuinely not sure, especially given Elijah's response. If Elijah believes that proper care is necessary to over time create a more socialized nation, then I'm confused about what "proper care means", or that Elijah has changed.

To Elijah - I agree, liberty is more righteous than democracy. Democracy is terrible, but offered an improvement over other systems for our culture. You see us attempting to institute democracy in other less developed nations and it's a travesty. Democracy in and of itself doesn't appear to be inherently good or bad, from a philosophical point of view, the way liberty can be argued to be so. Is your point that we should herald liberty a lot more than we do democracy? Maybe.

Liberalized, in my mind, always means to be more free. I see liberalism for what it truly means.

And yes, my whole point was that democracy, in and of itself, is not inherently good or evil, unlike liberty which is inherently good. We should herald liberty more than democracy because the concept of liberty broke the chains of slavery as well as leading the nation into prosperity.

 

[Demon of Light]

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.

The problem with this post and the entire premise of your thread is that the United States at that time was not a democracy.

 

[Mensch]

The problem with this post and the entire premise of your thread is that the United States at that time was not a democracy.

According to the strictest definition of the term, democracy revolves around the equal vote. If use a purist interpretation, then the U.S.A. was NEVER a democracy and is not a democracy today. We restrict minors from voting, so technically we do not enforce the equal vote.

Usually, most people tend to view a democracy as a real democracy both sexes are allowed to vote. In that case, we've only spent 90 years as a democracy. The interpretations differ. The premise, however, has nothing to do with the purity of democracy but of the virtue of liberty over democracy.

 

[Demon of Light]

According to the strictest definition of the term, democracy revolves around the equal vote. If use a purist interpretation, then the U.S.A. was NEVER a democracy and is not a democracy today. We restrict minors from voting, so technically we do not enforce the equal vote.

Usually, most people tend to view a democracy as a real democracy both sexes are allowed to vote. In that case, we've only spent 90 years as a democracy. The interpretations differ. The premise, however, has nothing to do with the purity of democracy but of the virtue of liberty over democracy.

The problem is do not know what democracy is and so you are in no position to judge it. Any notion that liberty is more important than democracy is absurd. Both are essential components of each other.

 

[Mensch]

The problem is do not know what democracy is and so you are in no position to judge it. Any notion that liberty is more important than democracy is absurd. Both are essential components of each other.

ut t
I've had this argument with Geo.

Liberty is not necessary for a democratic state. There are many examples of democratic systems that do not necessarily promote individual liberty. There are a very few examples (but they exist) of non-democratic states with a government that promotes individual liberty. The latter scenario is sometimes described as a "benevolent dictatorship."

 

[other]

ut t
I've had this argument with Geo.

Liberty is not necessary for a democratic state. There are many examples of democratic systems that do not necessarily promote individual liberty. There are a very few examples (but they exist) of non-democratic states with a government that promotes individual liberty. The latter scenario is sometimes described as a "benevolent dictatorship."

In general, I'd bet that the best you can expect in a pure democracy is liberty for the majority faction of the class allowed to participate in politics. This might be equal to 10% of the entire population, or less--possibly with restricted liberties reserved for some minority factions.

 

[Hatuey]

It was worse in Protestant States than Catholic States. In Protestant States they had no rights and were absolute property. Since they were cheaper than cattle, they were subjected to greater abuses and disgarded easily. They simply were not "people." In Catholic states, owners were bound by prescriptions demanded by the Pope. They were to be treated as future Christians in need of conversion and could buy their freedom once they converted. They were also given rights in some of them (Louisiana for one) to report abuse to officials and to sue in court. Of course this didn't happen, but it is written in original state legislations.

lol... nowhere in the United States were slaves cheaper than cattle. You're thinking Latin America and Haiti. Slaves in the US were treated as property and yet treated better than slaves anywhere else in the Americas. It was incredibly expensive to replace an American slave and to have one die meant having to go through the trouble of a BRN which was a thoroughly established force in West Africa by the 1850s.

 

[Solace]

No, that is a fallacy.

 

[OscarB63]

lol... nowhere in the United States were slaves cheaper than cattle. You're thinking Latin America and Haiti. Slaves in the US were treated as property and yet treated better than slaves anywhere else in the Americas. It was incredibly expensive to replace an American slave and to have one die meant having to go through the trouble of a BRN which was a thoroughly established force in West Africa by the 1850s.

wow, something you posted I finally agree with. Slaves in the US were a considerable investment. Yes they were considered property and treated as such. But they were an expensive property and were fed, clothed and sheltered. more than can be said for how my ancestors were treated.

 

[Demon of Light]

Liberty is not necessary for a democratic state. There are many examples of democratic systems that do not necessarily promote individual liberty. There are a very few examples (but they exist) of non-democratic states with a government that promotes individual liberty. The latter scenario is sometimes described as a "benevolent dictatorship."

Name any "benevolent" dictatorships you are thinking of and let us see exactly how "benevolent" they look when exposed to critical inquiry.

 

[Mensch]

Name any "benevolent" dictatorships you are thinking of and let us see exactly how "benevolent" they look when exposed to critical inquiry.

In my personal opinion, Abraham Lincoln and FDR were benevolent dictators. Especially Lincoln, who nearly controlled every aspect of the government (or his party, which you would then call a benevolent oligarchy).

 

[Demon of Light]

In my personal opinion, Abraham Lincoln and FDR were benevolent dictators. Especially Lincoln, who nearly controlled every aspect of the government (or his party, which you would then call a benevolent oligarchy).

I think the fact you have to go so far as to label them dictators points out how weak your argument really is here. Could you not think of someone with more absolute power who could even be described as tolerant never mind benevolent?

 

[Mensch]

I think the fact you have to go so far as to label them dictators points out how weak your argument really is here. Could you not think of someone with more absolute power who could even be described as tolerant never mind benevolent?

Lincoln and the republican party enjoyed near absolute power. There were a handful of democrats, but not many. And don't forget that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

I love Lincoln and I tend to remain neutral in discussions about Lincoln's dictatorial powers. But, like many nations, we constitutionally allowed a dictator during the greatest national crisis of our history. And he was a benevolent one.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Slavery had as much to do with economic interest as with social interest at the time.

Well, that may be, but slavery was allowed because it was required to form the nation.

Back in 1775-1776, many of the founding fathers questioned and argued over the topic of slavery. And ironically, Thomas Jefferson was both a slave owner, and was opposed to the institution of slavery. But not mentioning slavery in the Declaration of Independence, as well as allowing it in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution was a nessicary evil to keep the cooperation of the southern states.

It was not for another 80 years that the stresses over this "peculiar institution" finally brought the country to the breaking point.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Lincoln and the republican party enjoyed near absolute power. There were a handful of democrats, but not many. And don't forget that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

I love Lincoln and I tend to remain neutral in discussions about Lincoln's dictatorial powers. But, like many nations, we constitutionally allowed a dictator during the greatest national crisis of our history. And he was a benevolent one.

Lincoln was a Dictator in the vein of the Roman Republic Dictators.

Most people do not know, but the term Dictator comes from an office that was formed during the Roman Republic. Between 501-44 BCE, during times of extreme need (like The Punic Wars), the Republic realized that it would need an autocratic leader or the deadlock of the Senate and the Republic might doom the nation. So they created several different Dictators ("one who dictates") to help the nation through crisis like invasions, revolutions, uprisings, and civil wars.

However, these Dictators only served until the end of the crisis, when they would step back down and resume their previous lives.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a dictator twice. Cincinnati and the "Society of the Cincinnati" were named in his honor. And there were a great many Dictators of Rome (at least 92), until one Gaius Julius Caeser was appointed Dictator. He enjoyed it so much he refused to give up the office.

 

[nonpareil]

Liberalized, in my mind, always means to be more free. I see liberalism for what it truly means.

And yes, my whole point was that democracy, in and of itself, is not inherently good or evil, unlike liberty which is inherently good. We should herald liberty more than democracy because the concept of liberty broke the chains of slavery as well as leading the nation into prosperity.

There's nothing inherently good about "liberty" if by "liberty" you mean "to be more free".

More free to do what? More free to kill (the liberty to kill at will)?

Liberty for whom? The landowners felt their liberty were at risk when their property (the slaves) were taken from them.

And lastly, how do we express "liberty", an idea, into policy? Why the best means of doing so we have ever found is through democracy. And to fully exploit liberty - most freedom to do most things by most people possible, it would have to be a pure unadulterated one man one vote democracy, or an anarchy.

So your arguement in this thread is like a snake eating its own tail.

 

[nonpareil]

wow, something you posted I finally agree with. Slaves in the US were a considerable investment. Yes they were considered property and treated as such. But they were an expensive property and were fed, clothed and sheltered. more than can be said for how my ancestors were treated.

If you think slaves were so much better treated than some white freeman, given the choice, you would rather be a black slave with little possibility of freedom rather than a white man who can work his way up?