Slavery had next to nothing to do with the state. And the Trail of Tears was people wanting land. Slavery has been around since before the concept of the state. It's the result of greed, which many Libertarians claim either does not exist or is a positive trait.

Slavery had next to nothing to do with the state. And the Trail of Tears was people wanting land. Slavery has been around since before the concept of the state. It's the result of greed, which many Libertarians claim either does not exist or is a positive trait.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

To the title...

In general, agreed.

On this board, agree to disagree.

I don't think there is anything more anti-Libertarian than a person being born into or taken by force into the service of another.

Hey, go ahead and keep commenting upon an ideology you know nothing about

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Well yeah, KD isn't that bad. There aren't any other SJWs on here.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Well yeah, KD isn't that bad. There aren't any other SJWs on here.

I don't think there is anything more anti-Libertarian than a person being born into or taken by force into the service of another.

It's impossible for slavery to predate the concept of the state, and slavery in America literally had everything to do with the state. It cannot be separated from it.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

How is that impossible? It was an established institution in the earliest written histories. Thus it would have to pre-date it.

Do you deny either claim about greed though?

you don't need a state to have slaves.

How so? The concept of the state predates written history. In order to have slavery you first need to have the concept of a person or group of people wanting to control how the rest of their group lived.

You're last two posts are just trolling me Ruffy. Why don't you just post a picture of a large breasted woman?

I never stated that Libertarians support slavery. Do you deny either claim about greed though?

How so? The concept of the state predates written history. In order to have slavery you first need to have the concept of a person or group of people wanting to control how the rest of their group lived.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Is it greedy to hold the belief that you are entitled to the fruits of your own labor?

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Hah, he hooked you. Of course, no Libertarian would agree to force another to work for free. That sounds a lot closer to a statist/communist argument. Libertarians want people to pursue their own interests (detractors use the word greed) and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

That makes no sense. Humans controlling others means they understand the concept of the state? Nederthals were in tribes essentially and would steal females. I would consider this a form of slavery. And if that's a state then it means any pack animal understands the concept of the state.

It still sort of baffles me that so many on the left don't understand the damage their attitudes are doing to their cause. This shit is a lot more detrimental to the country long term than Trump and/or the alt right.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... urce=atlfb

“I never voiced my personal disagreements because having dissenting views is strictly forbidden in the activist circles I was a part of,” he explained. “If you’re white, you will be charged with being a ‘bad ally.’ (There's also certain gatherings you cannot come to because your mere presence might be threatening.) If you’re a person of color, your disagreements will usually be dismissed as some form of ‘internalized racism,’ ‘internalized sexism,’ or ‘respectability politics,’ among many other activist jargon's thrown at individuals who do not conform the groups views.”

Eventually, he started to speak up anyway, he said.

“On Twitter,” he wrote, “I discussed how trigger warnings have almost been rendered useless now that they’re used to alert individuals when talking about normal everyday things, like food, cars and animals. And that their use could potentially have adverse effects on academic freedom. I was accused of being outrageously insensitive and apparently made three activist cohorts have traumatic breakdowns.”

“In another tweet,” he added, “I criticized the usual tactic of campus activists to disrupt and heckle controversial speakers and advised them to raise their strong objections during the question and answer session, which lectures usually reserve long hours precisely to debate opponents. This time, the attacks got a little more personal. I was accused of being a ‘respectable negro,’ ‘uncle tom,’ ‘local coon’ and defending university officials to continue to ‘systemically oppress minorities.’”

He says he was ultimately kicked out of student-led social justice groups.

Its useless comparing our brains to pack animals because we're just veering way off topic at that point. But the concept of the state is really just a person or group of people controlling how a larger group of people lives.

But back to the original point, of course slavery in America specifically had almost everything to do with the state. It would have been impossible to be practiced as it was without the government specifically facilitating it. It's crazy to say they had nothing to do with it.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Slavery predated the government. And it took the government to end the practice. If the South had left the evil state, then slavery would have continued. The only reason that slavery ended was because we agreed to have a state that existed based on certain laws.

Its useless comparing our brains to pack animals because we're just veering way off topic at that point. But the concept of the state is really just a person or group of people controlling how a larger group of people lives.

Otherwise why would a person who had $200 million try to make $300 million?

This is an interesting conversation. You're both making decent arguments. I think we're a lot more like a pack of animals than we like to believe. I do agree with your second sentence here.

There's obviously greed coded deep within human DNA. Otherwise why would a person who had $200 million try to make $300 million?

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.