Well, I sympathize with that sentiment, and it's a valid criticism that such a system tolerated an evil for so long. However, slavery was a much greater evil t

Well, I sympathize with that sentiment, and it's a valid criticism that such a system tolerated an evil for so long. However, slavery was a much greater evil than just one country or one actor, and it ran large parts of society and was accepted or overlooked by many people across many countries for a long period. How is a system to deal with something that many, many people are ok with at the time but some people recognize is not fair / immoral? What should a government system be set up to do to check / repudiate that? Something that many people are willing (mistakenly) to accept as normal? And, did our system do the best that could have been done (and compared to others) to fix it? And what does that system mean for other, but different, problems that may come along? No one said it was perfect, and certainly no system has handled every issue perfectly, far from it. The question is what should you set up as the general system that can operate and handle problems with long-run good outcomes. If a society had rapidly course corrected and fixed that problem, what would it mean for future things it rapidly course corrected and also fixed? Maybe not in a way that was good? I may dare ask, how did your country fare by that measure? Did it tolerate slavery, and for how long? Did it accept or deal in the profits of slavery or other exploitation, or overlook it? Does it do so now, for other issues? We're just talking in political theory, right? Sitting on our ends of the internet, theorizing. Let's talk about it. What system is better?