4 ms·

It's not scary at all. It's the tradeoff we've always been making. Restricting access to slavery made society freer. Not giving anyone the freedom to buy and s

It's not scary at all. It's the tradeoff we've always been making. Restricting access to slavery made society freer. Not giving anyone the freedom to buy and sell human beings actually made everyone much more free. In the practical sense there are many freedoms which if they are restricted produce a net gain in freedom. Imminent domain encroaches on freedom to own land, but think of how much freedom a highway gives people. When the government forces everyone to pay tax for national healthcare, it gives every single citizen much more freedom. Freedom from alcohol's harms vs freedom to consume alcohol is a typical, valid, discussion to negotiate societal vs individual freedoms.

noarchy 8y ago
>Restricting access to slavery made society freer. You mean removing the laws that enforced slavery made society freer? Because slavery in North America, at least, was backed by law. It took government to make slavery possible. >Examples of government-backed theft (property and money) We don't see freedom the same way. We will not agree on this matter.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Because slavery in North America, at least, was backed by law. It took government to make slavery possible. This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law.
  - noarchy 8y ago
    >This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law. This rebuttal is getting recycled so often that I nearly addressed it before anyone said it. But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. This is on top of the ability of the state to simply take land and other forms of property, based on whatever the local legal system allows (eminent domain, asset forfeiture, etc). I'd add that this isn't necessarily an easy problem to solve, so I don't propose that anyone has a utopian answer to it all.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. In any social system in which “property” can be a meaningful context, there will be either an entity or an aggregate of entities which together exercise ultimate power in dispute resolution in the form of a monopoly on legitimate violence, and whatever entity or aggregate does so is called “government”, and “property” itself exists as an application by government of it's monopoly on violence to constrain behavior of individuals contrary to the property rights it defines. Yes, slavery is imposed by government through force—but only in the exact sense that all property relations are. > As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. Fee ownership (whether fee simple which is the dominant modern form or others that have fallen from favor like fee tail) has usually involved such payments. Allodial title has not, but allodial title has been typical of direct holding by the sovereign.

noarchy 8y ago

>Restricting access to slavery made society freer. You mean removing the laws that enforced slavery made society freer? Because slavery in North America, at least, was backed by law. It took government to make slavery possible. >Examples of government-backed theft (property and money) We don't see freedom the same way. We will not agree on this matter.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Because slavery in North America, at least, was backed by law. It took government to make slavery possible. This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law.
- noarchy 8y ago
  >This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law. This rebuttal is getting recycled so often that I nearly addressed it before anyone said it. But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. This is on top of the ability of the state to simply take land and other forms of property, based on whatever the local legal system allows (eminent domain, asset forfeiture, etc). I'd add that this isn't necessarily an easy problem to solve, so I don't propose that anyone has a utopian answer to it all.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. In any social system in which “property” can be a meaningful context, there will be either an entity or an aggregate of entities which together exercise ultimate power in dispute resolution in the form of a monopoly on legitimate violence, and whatever entity or aggregate does so is called “government”, and “property” itself exists as an application by government of it's monopoly on violence to constrain behavior of individuals contrary to the property rights it defines. Yes, slavery is imposed by government through force—but only in the exact sense that all property relations are. > As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. Fee ownership (whether fee simple which is the dominant modern form or others that have fallen from favor like fee tail) has usually involved such payments. Allodial title has not, but allodial title has been typical of direct holding by the sovereign.